Court Opinion

ID: 9806631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:19:16.622291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:30.967681
License: Public Domain

*899WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the panel opinion. I write separately to reiterate that our precedent in Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.2013), is wrong, wrong, wrong. Because Richard Vieux’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges the validity of his sentence, not the execution of it, the savings clause of section 2255(e), properly interpreted, affords him no relief. See Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271, 1276 (11th Cir.2014) (Pryor, J., concurring). Perhaps someday, the United States, in a proper case, will petition this Court to reconsider our precedent in Bryant en banc. If we were to overrule Bryant and its five-step rigmarole, we could dispose of this frivolous appeal and others like it in an opinion of two pages, instead of 18 pages.