USA V. JOHN MEEKS, No. 13-36023 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-36023 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-00024-DWM 2:03-cr-00028-DWM-1 v. JOHN MORGAN MEEKS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 31, 2015 Seattle, Washington Before: GOODWIN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner John Meeks appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court held that his motion did not qualify as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismissed it as * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had jurisdiction to determine “the threshold question whether [Meeks’s] petition was properly brought under § 2241 or whether the filing should instead be construed as a § 2255 motion.” Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865–66 (9th Cir. 2000). We may consider the district court’s determination that a § 2241 petition is not available even though the district court is not the custodial court. See Muth, 676 F.3d at 819. The district court did not err when it concluded that Meeks failed to satisfy the requirement of the § 2255(e) escape hatch because Meeks has not plausibly shown that he was actually innocent of the career offender sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Even if it is possible for a petitioner to “be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence for the purpose of qualifying for the escape hatch,” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012), Meeks has not made any showing that he is statutorily ineligible (and therefore actually innocent) of his sentence in light of Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). PETITION DISMISSED.
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.
