From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whittaker v. Chandler

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jul 1, 2014
574 F. App'x 448 (5th Cir. 2014)

Summary

holding that Descamps and other cases which address sentencing issues had "...no effect on whether the facts of Whittaker's case would support his conviction for the substantive offense."

Summary of this case from Garcia-Valenzuela v. Butler

Opinion

No. 13-11280

07-01-2014

MIJKIA CARL WHITTAKER, Petitioner-Appellant v. RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee


Summary Calendar


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-793

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Mijkia Carl Whittaker, federal prisoner # 30826-044, appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Whittaker challenged, relying on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. The district court denied relief, concluding that such allegations should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Whittaker had not established that he was entitled to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255(e), which allows a federal prisoner to challenge his conviction under § 2241 if the remedies provided under § 2255 are "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." A petitioner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective must make a claim "(i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner's trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion." Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001). Both Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2163, and Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2282, address sentencing issues and have no effect on whether the facts of Whittaker's case would support his conviction for the substantive offense. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, neither Alleyne nor Descamps is a retroactively available Supreme Court decision indicating that Whittaker was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See id. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Whittaker v. Chandler

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jul 1, 2014
574 F. App'x 448 (5th Cir. 2014)

holding that Descamps and other cases which address sentencing issues had "...no effect on whether the facts of Whittaker's case would support his conviction for the substantive offense."

Summary of this case from Garcia-Valenzuela v. Butler

holding that Descamps entitles a petitioner no relief under Section 2241 and the "savings clause" of Section 2255

Summary of this case from United States v. Gutierrez

holding that Descamps entitles a petitioner no relief under Section 2241 and the "savings clause" of Section 2255

Summary of this case from United States v. Andrews

holding that Descamps entitles a petitioner no relief under Section 2241 and the "savings clause" of Section 2255

Summary of this case from United States v. Chambers

holding that Descamps entitles a petitioner no relief under Section 2241 and the "savings clause" of Section 2255

Summary of this case from United States v. Conguisti

holding that Descamps entitles a petitioner no relief under Section 2241 and the "savings clause" of Section 2255

Summary of this case from United States v. Sistrunk

holding that Alleyne and other cases which address sentencing issues had "...no effect on whether the facts of Whittaker's case would support his conviction for the substantive offense."

Summary of this case from Robertson v. Butler

holding that Alleyne and other cases which address sentencing issues had "no effect on whether the facts of Whittaker's case would support his conviction for the substantive offense."

Summary of this case from Washington v. Butler

holding in the context of the § 2255 savings clause that Descamps is not a retroactively available Supreme Court decision

Summary of this case from Oxner v. Roy

holding in the context of the savings clause that Descamps is not a retroactively available Supreme Court decision

Summary of this case from Hawley v. United States

holding in the context of the savings clause that Descamps is not a retroactively available Supreme Court decision

Summary of this case from Cook v. United States

finding Descamps is not retroactive on collateral review

Summary of this case from Caldwell v. United States

finding Descamps is not retroactive on collateral review

Summary of this case from Padgett v. United States
Case details for

Whittaker v. Chandler

Case Details

Full title:MIJKIA CARL WHITTAKER, Petitioner-Appellant v. RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 1, 2014

Citations

574 F. App'x 448 (5th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Williamson v. United States

The court's decision is buttressed by decisions of other courts, which routinely have held that the rule…

Washington v. Butler

The savings clause of section 2255(e) does not apply to sentencing claims."). See also Whittaker v. Chandler,…