Source: http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190507_0001392.NTX.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-07 04:24:17
Document Index: 114677841

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 846', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241']

FindACase™ | Coronado v. Wilson
Coronado v. Wilson
JUAN ALBERT CORONADO, Petitioner,
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth, [1] Respondent.
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No.1) by petitioner Juan Albert Coronado (“Coronado”), a federal prisoner confined at FMC-Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Warden's response (ECF No. 6). After considering the relief sought by Petitioner, the record, related briefing, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Coronado's § 2241 petition should be and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Coronado was convicted in this the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Cause Number 4:14-cr-078-O (38), of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and sentenced to a 97-month term imprisonment. J., No. 4:14-cr-078-O (38), ECF No. 1550; Statement of Reasons, No.4:14-cr-078-O(38), ECF No. 1551. Coronado did not file a direct appeal, and he did not seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Instead, Coronado filed the instant petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.
Coronado challenges this Court's sentence calculations, contending that the Court used the wrong advisory guideline range, that the guideline range should have been 10-16 months because he did not admit to any amount of methamphetamine, and that there was no evidence to associate him with any specific amount. Pet. 2-3, 5, 8, ECF No.1. He also alleges there was no factual basis for his guilty plea. Id. at 7.
Coronado fails to show that the § 2255 remedy is either inadequate or ineffective to the test the legality of his detention. Coronado cannot rely on § 2241 merely because he might now be limited in seeking relief under § 2255. Cf. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878) (holding that neither a prior, unsuccessful § 2255 motion, the limitations bar, nor successiveness renders the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective). Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has determined that, before a petitioner may pursue relief through § 2241 under the language of the § 2255 savings clause, he must show that:
In this case, Coronado has not made these showings, and a review of the grounds asserted in his § 2241 petition shows that he cannot make them. Coronado does not claim or attempt to demonstrate that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. Although Coronado includes a claim that there was “no factual basis for his guilty plea” (Pet. 7, ECF No.1), such claim does not challenge the viability of the ...