Williams v. Mayes , 479 F. App'x 872 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 3, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JEROME WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-3162
v. D. Kansas
CLAUD MAYES, (D.C. No. 5:12-CV-03107-RDR)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Jerome Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an
order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissing his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the district court’s order of dismissal.
A federal jury in the Eastern District of Missouri convicted Williams on
one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possessing
an unregistered firearm. The district court sentenced Williams to a term of
imprisonment of 288 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. United States v.
Williams, 194 F.3d 886, 888-89 (8th Cir. 1999). It does not appear Williams ever
filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the
Eastern District of Missouri.
In July of 2012, while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Leavenworth, Kansas, Williams filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United
States Court for the District of Kansas. In his § 2241 petition, Williams attacked
the validity of his convictions. In particular, he asserted the indictment failed to
plead sufficient facts to invoke federal interstate commerce jurisdiction. The
district court dismissed Williams’s petition, concluding the proper remedy was for
him to file a § 2255 motion in the Eastern District of Missouri. Bradshaw v.
Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Williams appeals.
Upon de novo review of the record and Williams’s appellate brief, this
court concludes the district court was correct in dismissing Williams’s § 2241
petition. A § 2241 petition is not the proper means to raise the claims set out by
Williams. Instead, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, a § 2255 motion in the
-2-
Eastern District of Missouri is the exclusive remedy for Williams to challenge his
convictions. Williams has not, however, established the inadequacy or
ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion. The mere fact the limitations provisions set
out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) would likely render any such § 2255 motion untimely
does not establish that statutory remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Id.; Sines v.
Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1072-74 (10th Cir. 2010); Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d
1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district was correct to dismiss
Williams’s § 2241 petition.
The order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
dismissing Williams’s § 2241 petition is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-