Brown v. Haro

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31259
Conference Calendar
WELTON BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. HARO,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-505
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Welton Brown, federal prisoner # 21317-034, appeals from the
denial of his petition for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief. Brown
contends that the conviction that resulted in his 1980
resentencing in state court should not have been used to enhance
his later federal sentence because he was not represented by
counsel at the state-court resentencing. He argues that Alabama
v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002), which recognizes a Sixth
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31259
-2-
Amendment right to counsel when probated or suspended sentences
are imposed, see Shelton, 535 U.S. at 674, applies retroactively
to his case on collateral appeal. He also argues that he was
convicted of a nonexistent offense, citing to Shelton, Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
1001 (2001), and Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000),
but does not elaborate on how he was convicted of a nonexistent
offense.
Brown has not demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an
ineffective or inadequate vehicle for relief, allowing him to
pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Cox v. Warden, Federal
Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Brown was
sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in 1980. Brown had available
to him when he first sought 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief the law
relevant to his claim that he was not represented by counsel at
his resentencing. See Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 374
(1979). Brown therefore cannot satisfy the prerequisites for
seeking 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief. See Reyes-Requena v. United
States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
We previously warned Brown that further challenges to his
sentence would result in sanctions. Brown v. Casterline,
No. 97-31059, 1-2 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 1998)(unpublished). IT IS
ORDERED that Brown is sanctioned in the amount of $100, to be
paid to the clerk of this court. IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of
this court and the clerks of the district courts in this circuit
No. 02-31259
-3-
may not accept any motions, petitions, applications, or appeals
from Brown challenging his federal bank robbery sentence, or the
use of any prior convictions to enhance that sentence, until the
monetary sanction is paid. Additionally, IT IS ORDERED THAT,
after the monetary sanction is paid, the clerk of this court and
the clerks of the district courts in this circuit may not accept
any submissions challenging Brown’s federal bank robbery
sentence, or the use of any prior convictions to enhance that
sentence, unless Brown first obtains the written authorization of
a judge of this court, or of the forum court, to file the motion,
petition, application, or appeal in question.
AFFIRMED. SANCTION IMPOSED.