### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 18, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11019 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 02 -C V -2 W I L L I E O U T L E R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R O B E R T E . M C F A D D E N , Wa r d e n , F e d e r a l S a t e l l i t e L o w, R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 18, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W i l l i e O ut l er , a pro se fe dera l pri soner, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al o f h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rawr i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . On appe a l , O ut l e ra r gue s tha t , i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . __, 125 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt v io la te d h is F if th a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w h e n it e n h a n c e d h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts n e ith e ra lle g e d in the i nd i ctm entno r proven t o a j ury. O ut l erar gu es that28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 i s an i neff ec t i ve or i nadequ at e a venu e t o chal l enge hi s det ent i on because he has ra i se d A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 , 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (20 00 ), cl ai m s i n p ri or m ot i on s, i ncl ud i ng a pre vi ou s § 22 55 m ot i on . H e c on t ends that because tho se pri or m ot i on s w er e deni ed, “ i tw as hi gh l y unl i kel y i f the tri al court w o u ld. . . r e v e r s e its e lf if th e s e [ s ]a m e a lle g a tio n s w e r e p r e s e n te d as e c o n d tim e ,” a n d , th e r e f

o r e , a n yr e m e d yu n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 is in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e . T he avai l abi l i ty of habeas re l i ef un der § 22 41 pres ent s aqu es t i on of l aw that w e r e v ie w d e n o v o . C o o kv . W ile y , 2 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T yp i cal l y, co l l at eral att ack s o n th e v al i d i ty o f a fed eral co n v i ct i o n o r sen t en ce m u st b e b r o u g h t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 . S a w y e rv . H o ld e r , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 3 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he s a vi ngs c l aus e i n § 2255, how e ve r , pe rm i t s apr i s one rt o f i l e a§ 2241 pe t i t i on i f an o th erw i se av ai l ab l e rem ed y u n d er § 2 2 5 5 i s “ i n ad eq u at e o r i n effecti v e t o t est the l e ga l i tyof

hi s de t e nt i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2255; S a w y e r , 326 F . 3d a t1365. T he3

bur de n l i e s w i th the pe t i t i one rt o a f f i rm a t i ve l ys how tha tthe r e m e dyunde r§ 2255 i s i nadequ at e or i neff

ec t i ve. M cG hee v. H anberry , 60 4 F . 2d 9, 10 (5th C i r. 19 79 ). W h en a p ri so n er h as p rev i o u sl y fi l ed a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n t o v acat e, h e m u st appl yf ora nd r e c e i ve pe rm i s s i on f r om thi s C ourtbe f

or e f i l i ng as uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m o tio n . 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 2 2 5 5 ; I n r e B la c k s h ir e , 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1996) . T he r e s tr i c t i ons on s uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i ons , s t a ndi ng a l one , do not r e nde rtha ts e c t i on “ i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the s a vi ngs c l aus e , a nd ape t i t i one rw ho ha s f i l e d a nd be e n de ni e d apr e vi ous § 2255 m ot i on m ayno tci rc um ventthe succ es si ve-m ot i on rul e s i m pl y by f i l i ng a pet i t i on un der § 2241. S e e W of

f or d v. S c ott , 177 F . 3d 1236, 1245 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . T he s a vi ngs c lau s e o n lyap p lie s w h e n ( 1 ) th e m o v a n t’s c la im is b a s e d o n ar e tr o a c tiv e ly appl i cabl e S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on ; (2) the ho l di ng of thatdeci si on es t abl i shed that the pet i t i on erw as conv i ct ed of a “ no nexi st entoffe nse” ; and (3) “ ci rc ui tl aw square l y f

orec l osed such a c l ai m atthe t i m e i totherw i se shou l d h ave been ra i se d at the pet i t i on er ’ s tri al , appeal , or fi rs t§ 2 25 5 m ot i on . ” I d. at12 44 ; se e a l so S aw ye r, 3 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 5 . O u t l e ra r g u e s th a tth e s a v i n g s c l au s e ap p l i e s t o h i m b e c au s e th e Su p r e me C o u rt’s d e c is io n in B o o k e rs h o u ldb e ap p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e lyo n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w . W e have hel d that“ the const i tut i on al rul e ann ou nced i n B oo ker i s aprot otypi ca l4

pr oc e dur a l rul e . . . . tha tdo[ e s ] notappl yr e tr oa c t i ve l yt o § 2255 c a s e s on c o lla te r a l r e v ie w .” V a r e lav . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 7 - 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e fi rstp ro n g o f th e sav i n g s cl au se t estth erefo re h as n o tb een m etb ecau se B o o k e ris n o t r e tr o a c tiv e lyap p lic ab le o n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w . T h e seco n d p ro n g o f th e sav i n g s cl au se t estal so h as n o tb een m etb ecau se the of f e ns e s f orw hi c h O ut l e rw a s c onvi c t e d ha ve notbe e n m a de “ none xi s t e nt ” by B ooke r . I n S a w y e r , w e he l d tha tw he r e as ubs e que ntde c i s i on “ c l a r i f i e d the s t a nda r d byw hi c h aj urym us tf i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l tyof

a[ s pe c i f i e d c r i m e ] ” a nd w he r e the de f

e nda ntw a s c onvi c t e d unde rthe pr i ors t a nda r d, the de f e nda ntw a s not conv i ct ed of a “ no nexi st entoffe nse” for the pu rposes of a habeas pet i t i on . S aw ye r, 32 6 F . 3d at13 66 . B oo ker, even i f i tw er e r etroac t i vel y app l i cabl e on col l at er al re vi ew , addres se d sent enci ng i ss ues. Itdi d n oti nv al i dat e the cr i m es for w hi ch O u tle rw a s c o n v ic te d . O u tle rth u s h a s n o t s a tis f ie d th e p r e r e q u is ite s n e c e s s a ryto in v o k e § 2 2 5 5 's s a v in g s c lau s e . AF F I RME D.