James Chaplin v. Deborah Hickey, et al., No. 10-12022 (11th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12022 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEB 15, 2012 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00114-LGW-JEG JAMES CHAPLIN, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant, versus DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, JR., lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (February 15, 2012) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James Chaplin, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals the district court s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for failure to state a claim. His claim is that he was wrongly sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because of an escape conviction that Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), and Chambers v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009), make clear is not a violent felony within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), and that as a result of the error he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum applicable to his crime. Our decision in Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2010), did not decide that issue. See id. at 1295, 1306 07, 1312, 1316, 1319 n.20, 1323. The Government concedes that Chaplin s allegations, if true, do state a claim. We exercise our discretion to accept in this case the Government s concession that Chaplin may present his claim in a § 2241 petition, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of Chaplin s habeas claim to determine if the allegations of his petition are true. VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.