Blake Sandlain v. C. Johnson ( 2018 )

Case: 18-30314 Document: 00514727200 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-30314 FILED
November 16, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BLAKE SANDLAIN,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
C. JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:17-CV-1546
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Blake Sandlain, federal prisoner number 12250-088, was convicted in
the Eastern District of Michigan of possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He now
appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed in the
Western District of Louisiana, where he is currently incarcerated. In his
petition, Sandlain sought relief from the career offender enhancement under
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-30314 Document: 00514727200 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2018
No. 18-30314
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). We
review the dismissal of his petition de novo. Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d
378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003).
A prisoner may use Section 2241 to challenge his sentence only if it
“appears that the remedy [under Section 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). A Section 2241 petition
is not a substitute for a Section 2255 motion, and Sandlain must establish the
inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a Section 2255 motion by meeting the savings
clause of Section 2255. See § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830
(5th Cir. 2001); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.
2001). Under that clause, Sandlain must show that his petition sets forth a
claim “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which
establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and
that the claim “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when [it] should have
been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first [Section] 2255 motion.” Reyes-
Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
Because the decision in Mathis implicates the validity of a sentence
enhancement, Mathis does not establish that Sandlain was convicted of a
nonexistent offense. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-27 (5th
Cir. 2005). Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that
Sandlain failed to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause of
Section 2255(e). See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Sandlain’s motion for
judicial notice is DENIED.
2