Robinson v. United States, No. 15-50045 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). In his section 2241 petition, petitioner challenged the sentence imposed following his conviction in 1998 for drug-related offenses, contending that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 2255. In this case, petitioner's invocation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and Alleyne v. United States, is predicated on his contention that Persaud v. United States announced a change in the law. The court concluded that, because Persaud was not a substantive decision, it does not support petitioner's contention that the particular sentencing errors he complains of are amenable to section 2241 relief in this case. Accordingly, the court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the appeal.
Download PDF
Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50045 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 5, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk STANLEY ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Stanley Robinson, federal prisoner # 25071-044, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his petition, Robinson challenged the sentence imposed following his conviction in 1998 in the Eastern District of Missouri of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Robinson contends that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have construed Robinson’s motion as a challenge to the district court’s determination that his appeal has not been brought in good faith. See Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 No. 15-50045 Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Section 2255 provides “the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal sentence.” Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2241, on the other hand, is used to challenge “the manner in which a sentence is executed.” Id. A petition filed under § 2241 that raises errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing should be construed as a § 2255 motion. Id. at 87778. However, under the savings clause, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the petitioner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see also § 2255(e). Robinson has the burden of showing that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Wesson v. United States Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002). He must show that his claims are “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and were “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31. Robinson wishes to challenge the legality of his sentence based on the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013); and Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014). His invocation of Apprendi, Blakely, and Alleyne, is predicated on his contention that Persaud 2 Case: 15-50045 Document: 00513370897 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 No. 15-50045 announced a change in the law. Persaud was not a substantive decision and, therefore, does not support Robinson’s contention that the particular sentencing errors he complains of are amenable to § 2241 relief in this case. The request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24; see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 3
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.
