eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2003-04

Goodall v. Conner ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          April 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41284
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM ROSCOE GOODALL, III,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
N. L. CONNER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-228
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Roscoe Goodall, III was convicted of carrying a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1).   He appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition for habeas corpus.     Goodall
argues that, pursuant to Bailey v. United States,
    516 U.S. 137
    (1995), the conduct underlying his conviction is no longer
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41284
-2-
prohibited by law.    Although Goodall did not appeal his
conviction or move to vacate his sentence pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , he contends that he is able to proceed with his
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition under the savings clause of
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .
Goodall is not entitled to benefit from the savings clause
of
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .     See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont,
TX,
    305 F.3d 343
    , 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
    123 S. Ct. 1374
     (2003).     First, Bailey does not apply because Goodall was
convicted of violating the ‘carry,’ not the ‘use,’ prong of
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1).     See United States v. Gobert,
    139 F.3d 436
    ,
439 n.21 (5th Cir. 1998).    The record shows that Goodall
“carried” a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense
within the meaning of the statute.     See United States v.
Wainuskis,
    138 F.3d 183
    , 187 (5th Cir. 1998).    Second, Goodall’s
claim was not foreclosed by precedent at the time when he could
have raised this argument in a
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion.       The mere
fact that a prisoner is time-barred from bringing a
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion does not render the statute inadequate or
ineffective.     Reyes-Requena v. United States,
    243 F.3d 893
    , 906
n.34 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.