Kevin Felts v. Warden Fed Corrtl Pollock Camp , 586 F. App'x 185 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-30475 Document: 00512861147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-30475
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2014
KEVIN FELTS,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WARDEN FCC POLLOCK CAMP,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:13-CV-2605
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Kevin Felts, federal prisoner # 45128-079, appeals the dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e). Felts challenged his 210-month sentence for conspiracy to commit
money laundering and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He
contended that the enhancements to his sentence were unconstitutional based
on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-30475 Document: 00512861147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2014
No. 14-30475
We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Pack
v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Since Felts sought to attack the
validity of his sentence, he had to meet the requirements of the savings clause
of § 2255(e) to raise his claim in a § 2241 petition. See § 2255(e). To meet the
requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e), Felts had to show that his
claim was (i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision
which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense”
that (ii) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have
been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v.
United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
In Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases a
defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury to be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 133 S. Ct. at 2163. Since the decision in
Alleyne implicates the validity of a sentence, Alleyne does not establish that
Felts was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary
Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). Therefore, the district court
did not err by dismissing Felts’s § 2241 petition for failure to satisfy the savings
clause of § 2255(e).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Felts’s motion for
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2