Carlos Gonzalez v. J. S. Willis, Warden ( 2017 )

Case: 16-50141 Document: 00513964496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50141 FILED
Summary Calendar April 24, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CARLOS PAUL GONZALEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
J. S. WILLIS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-402
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Paul Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 82609-179, appeals the denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 135-month sentence for
conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud. He argues that the district court
erred by dismissing his claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over his case and that his sentence violated his ex post facto rights.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50141 Document: 00513964496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
No. 16-50141
We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition. Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Generally, claims of trial or sentencing
errors are not properly raised in a § 2241 petition. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d
876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). However, a § 2241 petition that attacks a federal
sentence may be considered if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To satisfy this
“savings clause,” the petitioner must show that the claims are “based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that
petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and that the
claims were previously “foreclosed by circuit law.” Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
As the district court correctly determined, Gonzalez has failed to make
such a showing. Contrary to Gonzalez’s assertion, the denial of his prior § 2255
motion does not, in and of itself, establish that § 2255 relief is inadequate. See
Pack, 218 F.3d at 452-53. Nor does Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072,
2078 (2013), which addressed an application of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, establish that Gonzalez was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See
Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2