Case Name: Micah RUDISILL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Center Yazoo City, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-28
Citations: 442 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 10-60573
Parties: Micah RUDISILL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Center Yazoo City, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
Micah RUDISILL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Center Yazoo City, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-60573
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2011.
Micah Rudisill, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Angela Givens Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In 1998, Micah Rudisill, federal prisoner # 48233-019, was convicted by a jury of, inter alia, money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)®, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of § 1956(h). In 2008, Rudisill filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that his money laundering convictions should be invalidated in light of the Supreme Court's then-recent decision in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008). The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition concluding that Rudisill did not meet the requirements for proceeding under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as set forth in Reyes-Requena v. United States, 248 F.3d 898, 904 (5th Cir.2001). In reviewing the denial of habeas relief, the district court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues of law are reviewed de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).
In this case, the district court limited the application of Santos to cases of illegal gambling. The district court did not have the benefit of this court's contrary reasoning in Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 402-04 (5th Cir.2010), when it reached this conclusion. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal of Rudisill's § 2241 petition is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to determine whether, consistent with Garland, his claim falls within the savings clause of § 2255.
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.