vacating a Fourth Circuit opinion that affirmed a Western District of North Carolina decision

In Persaud, the Supreme Court entered a grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) order for reconsideration by the Fourth Circuit in light of the Solicitor General's brief. 134 S. Ct. at 1023.

In Persaud, the Supreme Court remanded Andre Persaud's case to the Fourth Circuit to reconsider the denial of his § 2241 motion.

In Persaud, the Supreme Court agreed to remand that case for further consideration only because the Solicitor General flatly conceded the petitioner's argument that a challenge to a sentence may be pursued under the savings clause of § 2255(e).

In Persaud, the defendant sought to challenge a sentencing enhancement in a § 2241 petition and the savings clause of § 2255.

In Persaud, the Solicitor General of the United States filed a brief in which he conceded that the "petitioner is entitled to challenge the sentencing error [in this case] by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241."

In Persaud, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit, and remanded "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States...."

dealing with a mandatory-minimum life sentence

In Persaud, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the position advocated in the brief of the U.S. Solicitor General. The summary order did not set forth any substantive holding, much less a holding to be applied retroactively in collateral proceedings.

In Persaud, the district court denied petitioner relief under § 2255 and § 2241 and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Persaud v. United States, No. 3:12cv509, No. 3:01cr36-7, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167250, at *7, 2012 WL 5902557, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2012); United States v. Persaud, 517 F. App'x 137 (4th Cir. 2013).

In Persaud, the Supreme Court agreed to remand the case only because the Solicitor General flatly conceded the petitioner's argument that a challenge to a sentence may be pursued under the savings clause of § 2255(e).

remanding claims brought pursuant to § 2255 and § 2241 to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration of the Government's argument in favor of relief under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that a district court must look to whether a particular defendant could receive more than one year in prison based upon his offense class and prior record level to determine whether a North Carolina conviction may serve as a predicate offense for purposes of sentence enhancement)

In Persaud, the petitioner filed a § 2255 motion and argued that his two prior felony drug convictions no longer qualified as proper predicate felonies based on the Fourth Circuit's decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011).

In Persaud, the United States contended in its brief to the Supreme Court that the lower courts erred in holding that the savings clause is never available for sentencing-related claims.

In Persaud, the trial court denied Persaud relief on his § 2241 petition, holding that the savings clause of § 2255(e) does not permit him to seek relief under § 2241 purely because he had challenged his sentence rather than his conviction.

In Persaud, petitioner's enhanced sentence was based on two pre-Simmons North Carolina convictions, which, under Simmons, could no longer be classified as felony drug offenses sufficient to impose an enhanced sentence.

In Persaud, the trial court denied Persaud relief on his § 2241 petition, holding that the savings clause of § 2255(e) does not permit him to seek relief under § 2241 purely because he had challenged his sentence rather than his conviction.

In Persaud, the trial court denied the petitioner's § 2241 petition, holding that the savings clause of § 2255(e) did not permit relief under § 2241 purely because he had challenged his sentence rather than his conviction.

In Persaud, the Court remanded a petitioner's motion under § 2255 and alternative claims for relief under § 2241 to the Fourth Circuit for "further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States."

In Persaud, the Court did not issue a decision on the merits, but instead granted certiorari, vacated a decision by the Fourth Circuit, and remanded for further consideration in light of the Solicitor General's brief.

In Persaud, the Supreme Court granted the Government's request for a GVR order, thereby granting certification, vacating the judgment, and remanding for further proceedings without further discussion.

In Persaud, the petitioner received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) because he had two prior offenses that were considered "felony drug offenses."

In Persaud, a prisoner sought to collaterally challenge his sentence, claiming that the sentencing court's determination of his prior criminal history was incorrect under new circuit precedent, and that this erroneously led to a higher mandatory minimum sentence.

In Persaud, as in the instant case, the petitioner ("Persaud") sought to use the 2255(e) Savings Clause to allow the district court to address his petition under Section 2241. Persaud, as is true of Petitioner, based his argument on the theory that the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Simmons was made retroactive by Miller v. United States, 735 F.3d 141 (2013).