Court Opinion

ID: 9406784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 18:01:03.809818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.264116
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60525        Document: 00516807709             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/03/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60525                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                                 July 3, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Ricardo Javier Arellano,

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Shannon C. Withers, United States Penitentiary Yazoo City’s
   Warden,

                                               Respondent—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-361
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ricardo Javier Arellano, federal prisoner # 23305-058, appeals the
   dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the sentences imposed
   by the Western District of North Carolina following his convictions for
   armed bank robbery and kidnapping during a bank robbery. He also appeals
   the district court’s dismissal of his motion insofar as it sought a sentence
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60525      Document: 00516807709          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/03/2023

                                    No. 22-60525

   reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). Finding no error, we affirm. See
   Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
          A § 2241 petition and a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion are “distinct
   mechanisms for seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448,
   451 (5th Cir. 2000). “Section 2255 provides the primary means of collaterally
   attacking a federal sentence and is the appropriate remedy for errors that
   occurred at or prior to the sentencing.” Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424,
   425-26 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In
   contrast, § 2241 is the proper procedural vehicle by which a petition may
   “attack[] the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison
   authorities’ determination of its duration.” Pack, 218 F.3d at 451. “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.” Id. at 452.
          On appeal, Arellano neither challenges the district court’s conclusion
   that his claims seek to attack his federal sentence nor explains why, if so, the
   district court erred in finding that he could not nonetheless proceed by way
   of § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause. Instead, Arellano argues in a single
   sentence that § 2241 is the proper vehicle for challenging the execution of a
   sentence. Such a conclusory argument is insufficient even for a pro se
   appellant. See Abram v. McConnell, 3 F.4th 783, 787 (5th Cir. 2021).
          In any event, the district court correctly determined that Arellano is
   seeking to attack the imposition, not execution, of his sentence, and such
   attacks must be brought pursuant to § 2255. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451.
   Although “[i]n ‘extremely limited circumstances,’ federal prisoners may
   seek postconviction relief through a § 2241 petition instead of a § 2255
   motion” pursuant to the “so-called ‘savings clause’ of § 2255(e),”
   Hammoud v. Ma’at, 49 F.4th 874, 879 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting
   Pack, 218 F.3d at 452), the Supreme Court has recently recognized in Jones

                                              2
Case: 22-60525      Document: 00516807709           Page: 3     Date Filed: 07/03/2023

                                     No. 22-60525

   v. Hendrix, No. 21-857, 2023 WL 4110233, *8 (U.S. June 22, 2023), that such
   recourse is available only “where unusual circumstances make it impossible
   or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as for challenges
   to detention other than collateral attacks on a sentence.” There is nothing in
   either the record or Arellano’s briefing, in which Arellano focuses solely on
   his attacks as to the length of his sentence, to indicate that such unusual
   circumstances are applicable here.
          Finally, the district court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction
   over any § 3582(c) motion because it was not the sentencing court. See United
   States v. Shkambi¸993 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2021). Again, Arellano fails to
   identify any error in the district court’s stated reasons for denying § 3582(c)
   relief or otherwise brief this issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy
   Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          AFFIRMED.

                                               3