Benjamin Tillman v. J. Barnhart, No. 17-30067 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-30067 Document: 00514522582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30067 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BENJAMIN TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. J.A. BARNHART, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Pollock, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:16-CV-1304 Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Tillman, federal prisoner # 04060-017, was convicted in the Northern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; he was sentenced to 480 months of imprisonment. While he was incarcerated in the Western District of Louisiana, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Tillman asserted that under McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015), he was convicted of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30067 Document: 00514522582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2018 No. 17-30067 a nonexistent offense because he lacked the requisite mens rea; McFadden applied retroactively; and, as such, his claim fell under 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s savings clause. The district court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. Tillman fails to meet his burden of showing that his claim fell under § 2255’s savings clause. His contention that the Government failed to introduce the controlled substance at issue and prove the type of substance does not show he was convicted of a non-existent offense. See McFadden, 135 S. Ct. at 2303-04; see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-04 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 895 n.3; see also Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). 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.
