Steve Stapleton v. John Fox, No. 11-41399 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-41399 Document: 00511931528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-41399 Summary Calendar July 24, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk STEVE STAPLETON, Petitioner-Appellant v. JOHN B. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-340 Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Steve Stapleton appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 210-month sentence for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Stapleton argued that he was actually innocent of being a career offender and that as a result, his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-41399 Document: 00511931528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 No. 11-41399 be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. § 2255(e). Stapleton has not made such a showing because he has not established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the crime of conviction and, thus, not the type of claim that warrants review under § 2241. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27. Stapleton has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e). The judgment of the district court 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.
