Wanda Lee v. Joe Keffer, No. 10-11144 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-11144 Document: 00511417789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-11144 Summary Calendar March 21, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WANDA LAFAYE LEE, Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN JOE KEFFER, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-795 Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Wanda Lafaye Lee, federal prisoner # 33841-177, appeals the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged the sentence imposed following her conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. She argues that she was actually innocent of the offense of possession of a controlled substance in connection with her illegal possession of a firearm and that the resulting enhancement of her sentence represents a miscarriage of justice. Lee also argues that the district court erred at sentencing by applying the enhancement * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-11144 Document: 00511417789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2011 No. 10-11144 where she had not been convicted of another offense involving the illegally possessed firearm. This court reviews a district court s dismissal of a § 2241 petition on the pleadings de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal sentence. Section 2241 is used to attack the manner in which a sentence is executed. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Under the savings clause of § 2255, however, a prisoner may seek relief under § 2241 from custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence if she can show that the remedies provided under § 2255 are inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [her] detention. Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks omitted). Lee has not shown that her § 2241 petition falls within the savings clause of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 Accordingly, the

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.