Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kenneth Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden Scott WILLIS, Respondent-Appellee
Kenneth Ray Johnson, federal prisoner # 38827-177, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Previously, Johnson was convicted of aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, determined to be a career offender, and sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. In his § 2241 petition, he argued that in light of Mathis v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), and this court’s subsequent caselaw, his Texas drug convictions no longer qualify as predicate offenses for the career offender sentence enhancement. On appeal, he also asserts that he is “factually innocent” of the enhancement and that this court should correct “the complete miscarriage of justice that has occurred in this case.”
The district court did not err in dismissing Johnson’s § 2241 petition. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Since the decision in Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2256-57, implicates the validity of a sentence enhancement, Mathis does not establish that Johnson was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, Johnson failed to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). There is no authority that would allow Johnson to proceed under § 2241 based on a showing of innocence or a miscarriage of justice without meeting the requirements of the savings clause. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Johnson’s brief contains an incorporated motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We DENY this motion without prejudice. Johnson may choose to move for authorization in a separate case.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-50676
Decided: June 04, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)