Summary
holding that a claim that one is actually innocent of being a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and therefore should be allowed to proceed with his section 2241 petition under the "escape hatch" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) is foreclosed by Marrero, and that dismissal of such a petition is appropriate
Summary of this case from Burnley v. CopenhaverOpinion
No. 12-35013 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01009-JE
10-16-2012
RONALD P. GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. J. E. THOMAS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ronald P. Green appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Green contends that he is actually innocent of being a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and therefore he should be allowed to proceed with his section 2241 petition under the "escape hatch" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This contention is foreclosed. See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he purely legal argument that a petitioner was wrongly classified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines is not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence under the escape hatch."). The district court correctly dismissed his petition. See id.
We construe Green's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.