John Sinclair v. J. Willis, No. 17-50353 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-50353 Document: 00514351467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50353 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 16, 2018 JOHN O. SINCLAIR, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner - Appellant v. J. SCOTT WILLIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CV-58 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John O. Sinclair, federal prisoner # 21082-056, appeals the district court’s determination that his challenge to his federal sentence is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Sinclair challenges the career offender enhancement on the basis that he is actually innocent of one of the predicate offenses. He argues that Section 2241 is available to him because his claim “would be meritorious if it could be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255” and 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50353 Document: 00514351467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 No. 17-50353 review is unavailable under that statute. Therefore, his incarceration as a career offender creates a miscarriage of justice and that he is entitled to relief under Section 2241 because of his actual innocence of the predicate offense. We review the dismissal of Sinclair’s petition de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Because he did not rely on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision indicating that he may have been convicted for a nonexistent offense, Sinclair did not show that Section 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective remedy, and the district court did not err in dismissing the petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack, 218 F.3d at 451. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. appointment of counsel is DENIED. 2 The motion for
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.
