William Abbott v. USA, No. 16-41168 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-41168 Document: 00514042626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-41168 Summary Calendar FILED June 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WILLIAM R. ABBOTT, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CV-35 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Russell Abbott, federal prisoner # 57819-083, was convicted in 2008 in the Eastern District of Virginia of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual acts for which a person could be charged with a criminal offense and of transporting child pornography. Abbott filed the instant motion challenging the legality of his criminal conviction and sentence. The pleading was construed by the district court as a petition for a writ of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-41168 Document: 00514042626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2017 No. 16-41168 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It was dismissed because Abbott had not shown that he may proceed under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Abbott contends that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense and is innocent because the offense did not involve a minor victim. He complains also that an interstate nexus was not established. Because these claims are not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, Abbott has not satisfied the standard for filing a § 2241 petition under the Savings Clause of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Abbott’s motion for extraordinary relief and for sanctions is DENIED. 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.