IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40557

Summary Calendar

COLLIE LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN USP BEAUMONT,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-122

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges:

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Collie Lee Williams, federal prisoner # 81586-004, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his total 264-

month prison sentence for (1) possessing with intent to distribute crack 

cocaine, (2) using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug 

trafficking offense, and (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm. Williams 

also moves for a stay of these proceedings pending either a determination of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40557 Document: 00513118250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-40557

2

the retroactivity of Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), or a 

decision in the rehearing of Spencer v. United States, 727 F.3d 1076, 1087 (11th 

Cir. 2013).1

Williams argues that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holdings in 

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), and Descamps, his previous state 

convictions for strong armed robbery and possession of cocaine did not qualify 

as predicate offenses for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 

and, therefore, the district court erroneously sentenced him to a mandatory 

statutory minimum. Williams also argues that he is entitled to invoke the 

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because (1) there was a “fundamental error” 

in his criminal proceedings, (2) § 2255 is invalid because the cases upon which 

he now relies were not available on direct review or during his initial collateral 

attack, and (3) any remedy under § 2255 would be inadequate to test the 

legality of his detention because his motion would be barred as second or 

successive.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Kinder 

v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). Because § 2241 is not a substitute 

for § 2255, a “section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a 

federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 

motion.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2241 petition 

that attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be 

entertained under the savings clause of § 2255 only if the petitioner establishes 

that the remedy provided under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the 

legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 

F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). To demonstrate that the remedy provided under 

 

1 Since Williams filed his motion for a stay, the Eleventh Circuit has issued its en banc 

opinion in Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc).

 Case: 14-40557 Document: 00513118250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-40557

3

§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, Williams must establish that his claim is 

(i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which 

establishes that [he] . . . may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and 

(ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have 

been raised in [his] . . . trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. 

United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

The first “factor requires that a retroactively applicable Supreme Court 

decision establish that the petitioner is actually innocent,” meaning that he 

“may have been imprisoned for conduct that was not prohibited by law.” Jeffers 

v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830–31 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Williams’s assertions that the district court erred in 

sentencing him as a career offender do not meet this standard. His claim 

challenges the assessment of predicate offenses; it does not argue that he is 

actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted. See Padilla v. 

United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); Kinder, 222 F.3d at 214. 

Additionally, a remedy under § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective based 

solely on the fact that Williams’s previous § 2255 motion was unsuccessful or 

because any of Williams’s subsequently filed § 2255 motions will likely be 

classified as successive and, thus, barred. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830; Kinder, 

222 F.3d at 213.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Furthermore, 

as Williams does not claim to be innocent of the crimes for which he was 

convicted and, thus, cannot satisfy the savings clause, see Reyes-Requena, 243 

F.3d at 904, his motion for a stay is DENIED as unnecessary.`

 Case: 14-40557 Document: 00513118250 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2015