Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coronado v. Wilson

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

May 7, 2019

JUAN ALBERT CORONADO, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC D. WILSON, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth, [1] Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          REED O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No.1) by petitioner Juan Albert Coronado (“Coronado”), a federal prisoner confined at FMC-Fort Worth in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Warden's response (ECF No. 6). After considering the relief sought by Petitioner, the record, related briefing, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Coronado's § 2241 petition should be and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Coronado was convicted in this the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Cause Number 4:14-cr-078-O (38), of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and sentenced to a 97-month term imprisonment. J., No. 4:14-cr-078-O (38), ECF No. 1550; Statement of Reasons, No.4:14-cr-078-O(38), ECF No. 1551. Coronado did not file a direct appeal, and he did not seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Instead, Coronado filed the instant petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.

         II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

         Coronado challenges this Court's sentence calculations, contending that the Court used the wrong advisory guideline range, that the guideline range should have been 10-16 months because he did not admit to any amount of methamphetamine, and that there was no evidence to associate him with any specific amount. Pet. 2-3, 5, 8, ECF No.1. He also alleges there was no factual basis for his guilty plea. Id. at 7.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A motion under § 2255 is the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction or sentence. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (citing Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000) (per curiam)). “While § 2241 is more typically used to challenge the execution of a prisoner's sentence, a federal prisoner may bring a petition under § 2241 to challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence if he can satisfy the mandates of the ‘savings clause' of § 2255.” Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001)). The statutory “savings clause” provides,

An application for a writ of habeas corpus in [sic] behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Under the “savings clause, ” the petitioner has the burden of showing that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830.

         Coronado fails to show that the § 2255 remedy is either inadequate or ineffective to the test the legality of his detention. Coronado cannot rely on § 2241 merely because he might now be limited in seeking relief under § 2255. Cf. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878) (holding that neither a prior, unsuccessful § 2255 motion, the limitations bar, nor successiveness renders the § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective). Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has determined that, before a petitioner may pursue relief through § 2241 under the language of the § 2255 savings clause, he must show that:

(1) his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the Supreme Court decision establishes that he was “actually innocent” of the charges against him because the decision decriminalized the conduct for which he was convicted; and (3) his claim would have been foreclosed by existing circuit precedent had he raised it at trial, on direct appeal, or in his original § 2255 petition.

Christopher, 342 F.3d at 382 (citing Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904 and Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830).

         In this case, Coronado has not made these showings, and a review of the grounds asserted in his § 2241 petition shows that he cannot make them. Coronado does not claim or attempt to demonstrate that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. Although Coronado includes a claim that there was “no factual basis for his guilty plea” (Pet. 7, ECF No.1), such claim does not challenge the viability of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.