Jerald Dorsey v. Rebecca Tamez , 465 F. App'x 372 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-10526     Document: 00511805633         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/29/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 29, 2012
    No. 11-10526
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    JERALD JEROME DORSEY,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    REBECCA TAMEZ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondents-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:10-CV-856
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jerald Jerome Dorsey appeals the dismissal of a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition
    challenging his 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
    Dorsey argued that he was actually innocent of his sentence under the Armed
    Career Criminal Act in light of Begay v. United States, 
    553 U.S. 137
     (2008).
    As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the
    legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United
    States, 
    416 F.3d 424
    , 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may be raised in a
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 11-10526   Document: 00511805633     Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/29/2012
    No. 11-10526
    § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows
    that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
    detention.” § 2255(e).
    Dorsey has not made such a showing because he has not established that
    his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision
    establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena
    v. United States, 
    243 F.3d 893
    , 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, a claim of actual
    innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of
    the crime of conviction and, thus, not the type of claim that warrants review
    under § 2241. See Kinder v. Purdy, 
    222 F.3d 209
    , 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000); see also
    Padilla, 
    416 F.3d at 426-27
    . Dorsey has not shown that he is entitled to proceed
    under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e).
    The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
    motion for extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the
    district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-10526

Citation Numbers: 465 F. App'x 372

Judges: Graves, Jolly, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/29/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023