FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 28, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 06- 16233 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 83 -C V -3 S T E P H E N L E S T E R D A V I S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I C H A E L P U G H , W a r d e n , 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 28, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A , an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A pp el l antS t ephen L es t erD avi s, a p ro se f e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is p e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s f

ile d p u r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 2241. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d D a vi s ’ s pe t i t i on be c aus e i tf ound th a t th e “s a v in g s c lau s e ” o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 d id n o t ap p ly , a n d th e r e f o r e , D a v is c o u ld n o t s e e kr e lie f

u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . O n appe a l , D a vi s a r gue s tha tthe “ s a vi ngs c l aus e ” of 28 U . S . C . § 2255 ap p l i e s , a n d h e s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o f i l e ah ab e a s p e t i t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 1. D avi s argues thathe i s a ctual l y i nn ocentof bei ng a l ea der or organi ze r, a n d , th e r e f

o r e , s h o u ld n o t h a v e r e c e iv e d a n e n h a n c e d s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(a) . M ore s peci fi ca l l y, D avi s argues thatthere w as no evi dence in tr o d u c e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to s h o w h is e x e r c is e o f au th o r ity , d e g r e e o f

c o n tr o l, i nf l ue nc e , orl e a de r s hi p. D a vi s doe s nota r gue tha the i s a c tua l l yi nnoc e ntof the s u b s ta n tiv e o f

f e n s e f o rw h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . 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 we r e v i e w de no vo . See C oo k v . W i ley , 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 . Sa w ye r v . H older , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 3 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . H ow ever , un der l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance s, a provi si on of § 2 25 5 p erm i t s afe dera l p r is o n e rto f

ile ah ab e a s p e titio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . See 28 U . S . C . §§3

22 41 (a ), 22 55 . T hatprov i si on , kn ow n as the “ savi ng s c l ause , ” provi des that

[a ] n app l i ca t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n b ehal f of a p r is o n e rw h o is au th o r iz e d to ap p lyf o rr e lie f b ym o tio n p u r s u a n t to thi s s ec t i on , shal l no tbe ent ert ai ned i f i tappears thatthe appl i canthas f a i l e d t o ap p l yf

o rr e l i e f , b y mo t i o n , t o th e c o u rtw h i c h s e n t e n c e d h i m, ortha ts uc h c ourtha s de ni e d hi m r e l i e f , unl e s s i ta l s o appe a r s tha tthe r e m e dybym ot i on i s i na de qua t e ori ne f f e c t i ve t o t e s tthe l e ga l i tyof h is d e te n tio n . 28 U . S . C . § 2255. A c c or di ngl y , ac ourtm a ye nt e rt a i n a§ 2241 pe t i t i on a tt a c ki ng cust od y r es ul t i ng fr om a f eder al l y i m po se d sent ence i f the pet i t i on eres t abl i shes th a t th e r e m e d yp r o v id e d f o ru 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 . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e b u r d e n o f c o m in g f

o rw a r d w ith e v id e n c e a f f irm a tiv e ly s how i ng the i na de qua c yori ne f f e c t i ve ne s s of

the § 2255 r e m e dyr e s t s w i th the m o v a n t. D u ke s v . U

n ite d S ta te s , 189 F e d. A ppx. 850, 851 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng McG h ee v. H

a n b erry , 6 0 4 F .2 d 9 , 1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ) . 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 ot i on. 28 U . S . C . § 2244( b) ( 3) , 2255. W e ha ve he l d tha ts uc h r e s tr i c t i ons on s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s , s ta n d in g a lo n e , d o n o t r e n d e rth a t s e c tio n “in a d e q u a te o rin e f f e c tiv e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e s a v in g s c lau s e . W

o ffo rd v . Sc o tt , 177 F . 3d 1236, 1244- 45 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . C ons e que nt l y , ape t i t i one rw ho ha s f i l e d a p re v io u s § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n w h ich th e c o u rt d en ied m ay n o t circu m v en t th e A E D P A ’s4

s u c c e s s iv e - m o tio n ru le s im p lyb yf ilin g ap e titio n u n d e r§ 2 2 4 1 . I d. W e ha ve e s tab lis h e d th a t th e s a v in g s c lau s e o n lyap p lie s w h e n ( 1 ) th e p e titio n e r ’s c la im is base d o n a re troac t i vel y app l i cabl e S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on ; (2) the ho l di ng of that d e c is io n e s tab lis h e d th a t th e p e titio n e rw a s c o n v ic te d o f a“n o n e x is te n t o f

f e n s e ;” a n d ( 3 ) “c ir c u it la w s q u a r e lyf o r e c lo s e d s u c h ac la im a t th e tim e it o th e rw is e s h o u ld have been rai se d atthe pet i t i on er ’ s tri al , appeal , or fi rs t§ 2 25 5 m ot i on . ” I d. at 12 44 . In order for apri soner t o avai l hi m se l f of the § 2 24 1 rem edy und er W o f f o rd , a ll th r e e c r ite r iam u s t b e s a tis f ie d . Se e id. a t 1 2 4 4 - 4 5 . A pe t i t i one rm a ynota r gue the m e r i t s of hi s c l a i m unt i l he ha s “ ope n[ e d] the p o rta l” to a§ 2 2 4 1 p r o c e e d in g b y d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t th e s a v in g s c lau s e ap p lie s to h is c la im . I

d. a t 1 2 4 4 n .3 . I f

ap e titio n e rs u c c e s s f

u llyr e a c h e s th e m e r its o f h is cl ai m , the prop eri nq ui ryi s w hether the pet i t i on ercan o verc om e aprocedural d e f au lt f o rn o t r a is in g th e c la im e a r lie rb ys h o w in g a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . I d. A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby di sm i ss i ng D avi s’ s § 22 41 pet i t i on . D avi s i s pre cl ud ed fr om se eki ng re l i ef un der § 2 24 1 b ec ause § 2 25 5’ s “ savi ng s c l ause ” does notappl y. D avi s has no teven a tte m p te d to c o m p lyw ith th e f ir s t p r o n g o f

th e th r e e - p a rt W

o f f o rd t e s tbe c aus e he h a s n o t m a d e a n ya r g u m e n t th a t h is c la im is b a s e d o n ar e tr o a c tiv e lyap p lic ab le S u p r e m e C o u rt d e c is io n . T h u s , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s th e r e m a in in g p r o n g s . See5

W o f f o rd , 17 7 F . 3d at12 45 (hol di ng that“ the on l y s ent enci ng cl ai m s thatm ay c o n c e iv ab lyb e c o v e r e d b yth e s a v in g s c lau s e a r e th o s e b a s e d u p o n ar e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic ab le S u p r e m e C o u rt d e c is io n o v e rtu rn in g c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t” ) . H o w e v e r , it is w orth n ot i ng thatD avi s i s c hal l engi ng the l ength o f hi s s ent ence du e t o the di stri ct c ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of

U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( a ) , w hi c h doe s nots a t i s f ythe s e c ond pr ong of the W o f f o rd t e s tbe c aus e as e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntha s no c onne c t i on t o a conv i ct i on for ano n-exi st entse nt ence . B e c aus e D a vi s ha s note s t abl i s he d the appl i c abi l i tyof § 2255’ s s a vi ngs c lau s e , w e d o n o t n e e d to c o n s id e rth e m e r its o f h is a c tu a l in n o c e n c e c la im . D a vi s ’ s a c tua l i nnoc e nc e c l a i m i s notr e l e va ntbe c aus e he di d nots how tha tthe s a v in g s c lau s e o f

§ 2 2 5 5 ap p lie s . See W

o f f o rd , 17 7 F . 3d at12 44 n. 3 (st at i ng that

“ [ o] nc e the s a vi ngs c l aus e of § 2255 appl i e s t o ope n the port a l t o a§ 2241 pr oc e e di ngs the pr ope ri nqui ryi n tha t§ 2241 pr oc e e di ngs w i l l be w he the rthe pet i t i on ercan est abl i sh ac tual i nn ocence of the cr i m e f or w hi ch he has been c o n v ic te d .” ) . B e c au s e D a v is h a s n o t s a tis f ie d th e th r e e - p a rt W

o f f o rd t e s t , § 2255’ s s a vi ngs cl ause do es no tappl y, and, thu s, D avi s c anno tse ek re l i ef un der § 22 41 . T here fore , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. AF F I RME D.