Poff v. Smith ( 2022 )

Case: 20-20647 Document: 00516198273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 10, 2022
No. 20-20647 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Julia Gottselig Poff,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Warden Warren Smith,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-4450
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Julia Gottselig Poff, federal prisoner # 30385-479, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice
on the ground that it was moot. We review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition
on the pleadings de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20647 Document: 00516198273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 20-20647
To the extent that Poff’s § 2241 petition challenged her continued
pretrial detention and dismissal of the indictment based on her speedy trial
claims or to prevent further prosecution, the district court did not err in
dismissing the petition after Poff entered an unconditional plea of guilty,
notwithstanding Poff’s arguments to the contrary. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 228-29 (5th Cir. 1993); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018
& n.3 (5th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.
1992) (holding that unconditional guilty plea waived appeal of speedy trial
claims).
Poff asserts that her § 2241 petition was not mooted by her guilty plea
because she preserved her right to challenge her conviction based on
constitutional and statutory violations of her right to a speedy trial by raising
them in her § 2241 petition prior to pleading guilty and because her guilty
plea was unknowing and involuntary and her conviction is constitutionally
infirm. As noted, Poff pleaded guilty unconditionally, however. See Bell, 966
F.2d at 915. Her challenges to her guilty plea must first be asserted in a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because her conviction and sentence have
been affirmed. See Fassler, 858 F.2d at 1019. We discern no merit in Poff’s
claims that the district court erred by allowing the Government to file a late
response to her petition, delaying disposition of her petition, and denying her
an evidentiary hearing.
Finally, we do not consider Poff’s arguments that the filing of her
§ 2241 petition was the equivalent of an interlocutory appeal and divested the
district court judge presiding over her criminal proceedings of jurisdiction to
accept her guilty plea because they were raised for the first time in her reply
brief. See United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005).
2
Case: 20-20647 Document: 00516198273 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 20-20647
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Poff’s motion for immediate release is DENIED, and her motion for
expedited appeal is DENIED as moot.
3