Rodriguez v. Head, No. 20-40800 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-40800 Document: 00516262358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 31, 2022 No. 20-40800 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Roel Rodriguez, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Butch Head, Respondent—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20-CV-102 Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Proceeding pro se, Roel Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 87325-379, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his conviction * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-40800 Document: 00516262358 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2022 No. 20-40800 and sentence for conspiracy to: possess, with intent to distribute, 1,000 kilograms or more of marihuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846; and launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)–(ii), 1956(h), 2. The district court concluded that Rodriguez failed to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rodriguez’ challenge to his conviction and sentence is not based on retroactively-applicable Supreme Court decisions that establish he may have been convicted of nonexistent drug and money-laundering conspiracy offenses. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) (articulating savings-clause test). He, therefore, fails to meet his burden of showing that a § 2255 remedy “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) (noting “a section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge a federal sentence or conviction—thereby effectively acting as a section 2255 motion—may only be entertained when the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided . . . under section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective”). To the extent Rodriguez contends our court should expand the savings-clause test to encompass challenges to a sentence, as well as nonexistent convictions, his challenge is unavailing. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. 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.
