USA v. Glenn Metz, No. 11-31176 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-31176 Document: 00511934806 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-31176 Summary Calendar July 26, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GLENN METZ, Also Known as Shorty, Also Known as Jeeper, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:11-CV-1698 Before SMITH, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Glenn Metz, federal prisoner # 28118-048, is serving a life sentence and has convictions of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise ( CCE ) and pos* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-31176 Document: 00511934806 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2012 No. 11-31176 sessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he sued to challenge his convictions and sentence, and the district court dismissed the suit after determining that it should be construed as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This court is now presented with Metz s request for a certificate of appealability ( COA ), but one is not needed, because he sought relief under § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). The motion for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary. Because Metz s claims do not relate to the execution of his sentence, the district court did not err by recharacterizing his putative § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion. See id.; Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Insofar as Metz argues that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255 because of his reliance on DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (2011), and Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999), that argument is unavailing, because those decisions do not show that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1062 (2012); Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2003); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir. 2001); § 2255(e) The judgment is 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.
