From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Pearson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 13, 2010
390 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-60089 Summary Calendar.

August 13, 2010.

Quentin Antwan Mitchell, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, USDC No. 5:09-CV-191.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.


Quentin Antwan Mitchell, federal prisoner #95256-080, is serving a total 219-month sentence after he pleaded guilty, in two separate cases, to two counts of interference with commerce by robbery, two counts of carjacking, and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he asserted that one of his judgments of conviction was invalid because the district court dismissed all of the counts contained therein and that, therefore, the Bureau of Prisons did not have the authority to incarcerate him for 219 months. Mitchell previously has filed one untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and two unsuccessful § 2241 petitions.

The district court correctly determined that Mitchell's allegations of sentencing error are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Mitchell may challenge his conviction under § 2241 only if he establishes that "the remedy [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." § 2255(e); see Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904). Mitchell does not rely upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he is actually innocent. Thus, he fails to demonstrate that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31.

We caution Mitchell that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court's jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, Mitchell's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and a SANCTION WARNING IS ISSUED.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Pearson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 13, 2010
390 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:Quentin A. MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bruce PEARSON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Aug 13, 2010

Citations

390 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Owens

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIASee also United States v. Perkins, 424 F. App'x 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2011)…

Reese v. United States

e validity of his conviction on basis of allegedly defective or fraudulent search warrants and affidavits,…