Mariano Bedolla v. Barack OBama, et al, No. 11-10746 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-10746 Document: 00511750280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10746 Summary Calendar February 7, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARIANO BEDOLLA, Petitioner-Appellant v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, President; KAREN EDENFIELD, Warden; HARLEY LAPPIN, Director Bureau of Prisons; ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CV-151 Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Mariano Bedolla, federal prisoner # 14675031, filed the instant suit to challenge his judgment of conviction on several drugrelated charges. The district court determined that the suit was best classed as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it. In this appeal, Bedolla argues that his claims are properly brought under § 2241 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-10746 Document: 00511750280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2012 No. 11-10746 because they concern the infringement of his constitutional rights and because he has no other avenue in which to seek relief. He also argues that the district court erred by not considering Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011). When considering the denial of a § 2241 petition, we review the district court s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). Our analysis of Bedolla s arguments and pertinent authority show no error in connection with the district court s judgment. Because Bedolla s arguments relate to events that occurred prior to sentencing, his suit arises under § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). He has already filed the one § 2255 motion to which he is entitled, and he has not received authorization to file another. Consequently, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Insofar as Bedolla contends that he should be permitted to file a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255 because Bond, 131 S. Ct. 2355, meets the parameters of the savings clause, he is mistaken. Bond, a direct appeal, did not decriminalize his offense behavior, nor did it hold that claims such as the ones he raises may be presented in § 2241 petitions. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.
