Frank Stallings v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low

Case: 12-10142 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10142
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00675-JDW-TBS
FRANK STALLINGS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 21, 2013)
Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10142 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Frank Stallings, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas corpus petition challenging his
enhanced career-offender sentence in light of Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct.
1265 (2010), and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010).
Stallings’ § 2241 petition challenges his 240-month sentence imposed upon
conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). In his
petition, Stallings acknowledges he previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 that was denied. On appeal, Stallings argues the district court erred in
dismissing his petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion because he was
actually innocent of his U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 enhancement, such that the savings
clause of § 2255(e) applies.
The availability of habeas relief under § 2241 presents a question of law that
we review de novo. Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000).
Typically, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must
be brought under § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003).
The “savings clause” of § 2255, however, permits a federal prisoner to file a
§ 2241 petition if the petitioner can establish that § 2255 “is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). In Gilbert v.
United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc), we expressly held that the
2
Case: 12-10142 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 Page: 3 of 3
§ 2255(e) savings clause “does not authorize a federal prisoner to bring in a § 2241
petition a claim, which would otherwise be barred by § 2255(h), that the
sentencing guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a longer sentence
not exceeding the statutory maximum.” Id. at 1323.
The district court did not err in dismissing Stallings’ petition. The claim
raised by Stallings addressed the legality of his sentence and was therefore outside
the scope of § 2241. See Sawyer, 326 F.3d at 1365. Stallings may not circumvent
the statutory restriction on successive § 2255 motions simply by filing his current
petition under § 2241. See Gilbert, 640 F.3d at 1308. Stallings’ 240-month
sentence does not exceed either the unenhanced 40-year statutory maximum
sentence, or the enhanced statutory maximum sentence of life for a defendant with
a prior felony drug offense, given his concession on appeal that his Florida
cocaine-trafficking conviction was a predicate offense for § 851 enhancement
purposes. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Because Stallings’ 240-month sentence did
not exceed the statutory maximum, he may not rely on the savings clause of
§ 2255(e) to bring his claim under § 2241. See Gilbert, 640 F.3d at 1323.
AFFIRMED.
3