Betts v. Johnson ( 2023 )

Case: 21-30766 Document: 00516611195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-30766
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Darrin Lashaon Betts, Clerk
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Calvin Johnson, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Pollock,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:21-CV-3219
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Darrin Lashaon Betts, federal prisoner # 21755-078 and proceeding
pro se, appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas petition, challenging his 240-months’ sentence for possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court concluded Betts could not contest
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30766 Document: 00516611195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2023
No. 21-30766
his sentence under § 2241 because he failed to satisfy the “savings clause”
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law
reviewed de novo. E.g., Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 302
(5th Cir. 1999).
A § 2255 motion is the primary vehicle for collaterally attacking a
federal sentence. E.g., Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A
prisoner may challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241 petition,
however, if he shows the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention”. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Reyes-
Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) (articulating
savings-clause test). To satisfy this burden, a prisoner must present a claim:
“that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which
establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent
offense”; and “that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim
should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255
motion”. Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
Betts’ challenge is not based on a retroactively-applicable Supreme
Court decision establishing he may have been convicted of a non-existent
offense; therefore, he fails to show a § 2255 remedy is “is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention”. E.g., id. at 901.
AFFIRMED.
2