Ron Morrison v. Rachel Chapa, No. 14-50572 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-50572 Document: 00512973247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-50572 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 18, 2015 RON KEITH MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. RACHEL CHAPA, Warden, FCI La Tuna, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CV-162 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ron Keith Morrison, federal prisoner # 21229-056, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his sentences for convictions on two counts of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon and one count of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Specifically, in his petition, Morrison, relying on United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), challenged his sentencing by the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-50572 Document: 00512973247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2015 No. 14-50572 Eastern District of North Carolina under the career offender guideline. In this court, Morrison repeats his claim that he was erroneously sentenced under the career offender guideline, arguing that the failure to correct the error will result in a miscarriage of justice and that he is entitled to relief under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the error was not discovered until after his conviction became final and the time for filing a timely § 2255 motion had passed. We review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Morrison attacks the legality of his sentence, he must meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e) to raise his claims in a § 2241 petition. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). To satisfy the criteria of § 2255’s savings clause, a prisoner must show that his claim is (i) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and that his claim was (ii) “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, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Morrison has not made the required showing. Additionally, Morrison argues for the first time on appeal that the purported error in his presentence report, concerning the sentencing court’s application of the career offender guideline, is a clerical error that can be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We decline to consider this argument because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 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.
