IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

AKARI S. WILLIAMS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-155

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Akari S. Williams, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Beaumont, Texas, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The Petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Background

Petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment entered in the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana in cause number 2:14-CR-153. On July 25, 2014, a federal grand

jury returned an indictment charging Petitioner and two co-defendants with controlled substance

offenses. Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine and knowingly and

intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing

a detectable amount of methamphetamine. A jury found Petitioner guilty of both counts, and he was

sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment. 

Petitioner appealed the judgment, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion

to suppress, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the district court

Case 1:23-cv-00155-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

161
should have excluded testimony regarding other packages. The United States Court of Appeals

summarized the evidence as follows: 

In May 2014, the owner of a UPS store in Riverside, California opened a package she

believed to be suspicious and likely a drug package. She later testified that she

reported approximately one suspicious package to law enforcement per month, and

would receive a reward of $50 per package. She also testified that she would often

open such packages herself. The store owner believed the instant package was

suspicious because it was overly taped and was expensive to ship. The store owner

cut the package open, noticed a chemical odor, and called the San Bernardino County

Sheriff’s Department. 

A deputy sheriff responded to the call. After obtaining a warrant, the deputy opened

the package and found paint cans wrapped in cellophane that contained more than

three pounds of methamphetamine. Because the package was destined for Houma,

Louisiana, the Deputy contacted local law enforcement in the area. They agreed that

the package should be shipped to Louisiana.

When the package arrived in Houma, deputies executed a controlled delivery to the

address listed on the package. Officers placed a microphone and iPhone inside the

package. Those items would alert them when the package was opened and would

capture images of whoever opened it. The package, addressed to John Lirette, was

delivered to his address by an undercover agent, where it was accepted by an

individual the agents identified as Kerry John Lirette. Lirette got in his car with the

package and drove to a house less than a quarter of a mile away. Inside that house,

Williams and Lirette opened the box a few moments later, triggering the alert to law

enforcement. Williams’s cousin, who was in the house at the time, testified that

Lirette walked into the house with the package and into a room with Williams

separate from other rooms in the house. After opening the package, Williams and

Lirette went toward the bathroom while Williams said “Man, flush it. Flush it,” and

Lirette responded that he could not open the paint can in which the drugs were stored. 

A SWAT team then moved in and detained everyone insider the home, including

Lirette and Williams, and recovered the drugs law enforcement had delivered as well

as several weapons and cash.

During the raid, law enforcement also seized Williams’s cell phone. After obtaining

a warrant, law enforcement searched the cell phone and found text messages between

Williams’s phone and the phone number listed on the shipping label of the package. 

These text messages included the tracking number and payment information for the

methamphetamine package law enforcement had just delivered. The other phone

number in this exchange belonged to Philips Thompson, who police intercepted

when he landed at the New Orleans airport on his return from Los Angeles. After

2

Case 1:23-cv-00155-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

162
obtaining a warrant to search Thompson’s cell phone, police found tracking numbers

for other packages.

United States v. Williams, 774 F. App’x 871, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2019). The United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Petitioner argued that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing

to move to suppress evidence. On June 2, 2020, the district court denied the Motion. Petitioner filed

a Notice of Appeal, but the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. 

The Petition

Petitioner contends that he is actually innocent based on newly discovered evidence. 

Petitioner submitted the affidavit of a co-defendant who stated under penalty of perjury that he

mistakenly mailed a box of methamphetamine to Petitioner instead of a box containing glass pipes,

which he intended to mail to Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that he was unable to raise this issue in

his § 2255 Motion because he received the affidavit after the judgment denying the Motion was

entered.

Analysis

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal

conviction and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2241 is

correctly used to attack the manner in which a sentence is executed. Id. A petition for writ of habeas

corpus is not a substitute for a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to § 2255. Jeffers v. Chandler,

253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). 

3

Case 1:23-cv-00155-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

163
The “savings clause”of § 2255 allows a prisoner to use § 2241 as the vehicle for attacking

a federal conviction only if it appears that the remedy by § 2255 motion “is inadequate or ineffective

to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The savings clause offers relief in

“extremely limited circumstances.” Hammoud v. Ma’at, 49 F.4th 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting

Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999). Petitioner bears the burden of proving

the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a motion under § 2255. Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. A prior

unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255

motion, does not make § 2255 an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878. 

Further, an intervening change in statutory interpretation is insufficient to invoke the savings clause. 

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, , 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1864 (2023). 

Because Movant previously filed a § 2255 motion, he is barred from filing a successive

motion unless it relies on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h). In this case, Movant argues that he is entitled to relief based on newly discovered

evidence. The bar on filing successive § 2255 motions does not apply to claims involving newly

discovered evidence. Therefore, Petitioner has an available remedy–to request authorization from

the Fifth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. As a result, this Petition should be dismissed. 

Recommendation

This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed.

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

4

Case 1:23-cv-00155-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

164
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P.

72. 

5

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 31st day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00155-MJT-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

165