Artur Tchibassa v. Warden Scott Willis, No. 17-51130 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-51130 Document: 00514729230 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-51130 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 19, 2018 ARTUR TCHIBASSA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN SCOTT WILLIS, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CV-272 Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Artur Tchibassa, federal prisoner # 25340, was convicted of hostage taking and conspiring to do the same and was sentenced to serve 293 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition and the ensuing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion, arguing that these judgments are erroneous because the district court applied this court’s caselaw concerning 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-51130 Document: 00514729230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2018 No. 17-51130 savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and rejected his argument that he should be permitted to bring a claim concerning actual innocence in a § 2241 petition. As the district court noted, this court has held that actual innocence factors into the § 2255(e) analysis only insofar as one may avail himself of the savings clause if he relies upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court case showing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Tchibassa has shown no error in connection with the district court’s reliance on this jurisprudence to reject his claim that he should be permitted to raise an actual innocence claim in a § 2241 proceedings and to deny his Rule 59(e) motion. 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.