Rodolfo Castillo, Jr. v. Rodney Chandler

Case: 13-10280 Document: 00512379794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 19, 2013
No. 13-10280
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RODOLFO CASTILLO, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
WARDEN RODNEY CHANDLER,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-104
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodolfo Castillo, Jr., federal prisoner # 38109-177, appeals the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the 170-month sentence he received
following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine. Castillo asserts
that he is actually innocent of the relevant conduct used to ascertain the
pertinent drug quantity for sentencing purposes, that he should be held
responsible for only the 500 grams alleged in the indictment, and that he is
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10280 Document: 00512379794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2013
No. 13-10280
entitled to immediate release. The district court concluded that Castillo’s claims
were more properly raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed the petition.
As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the
legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United
States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may be raised in a
§ 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows
that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” § 2255(e). Castillo has not made such a showing, as he has not
established that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Padilla,
416 F.3d at 426-27; Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343,
348 (5th Cir. 2002); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.
2001). Because Castillo is not entitled to relief, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.
2