Court Opinion

ID: 9381176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 00:00:29.9408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.333926
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-40593        Document: 00516684480             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 20-40593
                                                                             FILED
                                                                       March 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   Chadwick Marvin Thompson,

                                                                  Petitioner—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Warden, FCI Texarkana,

                                               Respondent—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:20-CV-46
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Chadwick Marvin Thompson, federal inmate # 07787-078 and
   proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
   petition. He was convicted in 2013 for conspiracy to distribute and possess
   with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
   §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and sentenced as a career offender under Sentencing

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-40593      Document: 00516684480          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                    No. 20-40593

   Guideline § 4B1.1(b)(1). He contends: application of the career-offender
   enhancement was predicated on his 1999 conviction for illegal possession of
   a machine gun; that conviction would be invalid under intervening Supreme
   Court decisions; therefore, his current sentence was enhanced improperly
   for a nonexistent crime.
          The district court ruled Thompson’s challenge: had to be pursued in
   a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct; and did not fall
   within § 2255(e)’s “savings clause”. The court’s factual findings are
   reviewed for clear error; its legal conclusions, de novo. E.g., Christopher v.
   Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003).
          Thompson does not challenge “the manner in which [his] sentence is
   [being] carried out”. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).
   Rather, his claim is based on an alleged error which “occurred at or prior to
   sentencing”; therefore, he was required to pursue his challenge in a motion
   under § 2255, instead of § 2241, unless he satisfies § 2255’s savings clause.
   Id. (citation omitted).
          Where petitioner improperly pursues his challenge in a § 2241 motion,
   the savings clause permits review where he “establishes that the remedy
   provided for under section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective”. Id.; see
   § 2255(e) (savings clause). Our court has held the remedy provided under
   § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective when petitioner’s challenge is, inter alia,
   “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which
   establishes [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense”. Reyes-
   Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Thompson’s contention “that he is actually innocent of being a career
   offender . . . is not the type of argument that courts have recognized may
   warrant review under § 2241” because he “makes no assertion that he is
   innocent of the crime for which he was convicted”. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d

                                         2
Case: 20-40593      Document: 00516684480          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/21/2023

                                    No. 20-40593

   209, 213–14 (5th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Accordingly, he fails to meet
   his burden of showing § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
   of his detention”. § 2255(e).
          He additionally contends our court should join the fourth circuit in
   expanding § 2255(e)’s savings clause to encompass sentencing errors. See
   generally United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018). Our court
   recently declined to “revisit the issues decided in Reyes-Requena”. Hammoud
   v. Ma’at, 49 F.4th 874, 882–83 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Therefore, Reyes-
   Requena—and Kinder—continue to govern the application of § 2255(e) in
   this circuit.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3