Mitchell v. Casterline ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30103
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-1838-A
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William James Mitchell, federal prisoner No. 84559-020,
appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In June
1993, Mitchell was convicted of controlled substance and firearms
offenses in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, and he was sentenced to a 300-month term of
imprisonment, enhanced by a prior controlled substance
conviction. Mitchell is currently incarcerated in the Western
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-30103
-2-
District of Louisiana. Mitchell has challenged his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, without success.
Mitchell argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
impose an enhanced sentence because the Government did not
properly serve Michell with the enhancement information as
required by 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) and because the court failed to
comply with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(b) prior to
imposing sentence. Because Mitchell’s petition raises errors
that allegedly occurred at his sentencing, it must be construed
as sounding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless Mitchell establishes
that his claims fall under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The
savings clause applies where “the remedy by motion is inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.
Mitchell has not attempted to establish that he is entitled
to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 via the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings
clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d
343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003).
Consequently, he is not entitled to § 2241 relief, and his
petition must either be dismissed or construed as a § 2255
motion. Pack, 218 F.3d at 452-53.
As claims arising under § 2255 must be heard in the
sentencing court, the District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana lacked jurisdiction to construe Mitchell’s pleadings as
No. 03-30103
-3-
a § 2255 motion. See § 2255. Furthermore, Mitchell has
previously filed a motion under § 2255 and he has not obtained
certification to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 898-99 (5th Cir.
2001). Moreover, Mitchell has not made any showing that his
petition satisfies the applicable requirements for such a motion.
See Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the dismissal of Mitchell’s § 2241 petition is
AFFIRMED.