Stine v. Davis, No. 10-1217 (10th Cir. 2011)Annotate this Case
Petitioner-Appellant Mikeal Stine sought to challenge a district court's calculation of his sentence. He argued that the sentencing court mistakenly designated him a career offender based on two prior escape convictions. Petitioner's strategy to challenge his sentence was to challenge the underlying legality of his sentence rather than how it was executed, a tactic which he tried before and lost at the district court. Petitioner thus brought his appeal before the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.c. 2255(e), the statute's so-called "savings clause" which would have allowed him to bring his second or successive motion for post-conviction relief under section 2241 when 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the savings clause was inapplicable to Petitioner's case, and held that the district court thus properly held Petitioner's effort to invoke section 2241 impermissible, and correctly dismissed his petition.