Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of § 2241 petition based on Mathis
Summary of this case from Arthur v. Bureau of PrisonsOpinion
No. 17-30815
07-26-2018
TRAMAINE MONDALE BEADLES, Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN USP POLLOCK, Respondent-Appellee
Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:17-CV-809 Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------
Tramaine Mondale Beadles, federal prisoner # 15213-031, was convicted of bank robbery by force, violence, or intimidation, and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 210 months. He now appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that, in light of the decisions in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and Sharbutt v. Vasquez, 136 S. Ct. 2538 (2016), his prior burglary convictions are no longer categorized as violent felonies and cannot support the career offender enhancement of his sentence. He asserts that the district court erred in determining that he has not demonstrated that he was entitled to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Our review is de novo. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the savings clause of § 2255(e), a § 2241 petition may be considered if Beadles shows that § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." § 2255(e). To satisfy § 2255(e)'s saving clause, Beadles must establish that (1) his claim is "based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense," and (2) his claim was "foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion." Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
Beadles has failed to make the requisite showing. See id. at 904. We have repeatedly held that challenges to the validity of a sentencing enhancement do not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255(e) See, e.g., In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.