Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12896
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01790-WSD
CLEVELAND HANKERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY,
Atlanta, Georgia,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 2, 2015)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 2 of 9
Cleveland Hankerson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as
successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). In his instant petition, Hankerson again
relied on Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490
(2008), to argue that he should not have had his sentence enhanced as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because his prior conviction for aggravated
battery did not constitute a violent felony. As background, in dismissing an earlier
§ 2241 habeas petition, the district court had adjudicated on the merits Hankerson’s
claim that, under Begay, his prior conviction for driving under the influence
(“DUI”) did not constitute a violent felony for purposes of the career-offender
enhancement under § 4B1.1. In its order dismissing that earlier petition, the
district court had reasoned that (1) the petition was untimely because Hankerson
had filed it more than a year after the Supreme Court had decided Begay; (2) he
could not satisfy the requirement of Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir.
1999), of demonstrating that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense; (3) he had
not received a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, such that, under
Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the “savings
clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) did not apply to his sentencing claim; and (4) his
claim of “actual innocence” of the career-offender enhancement failed because he
2
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 3 of 9
did not allege that he was factually innocent of his offenses of conviction, and the
actual-innocence exception did not apply to claims of guidelines error.
On appeal, Hankerson argues the merits of his claim that he is “actually
innocent” of his career-offender enhancement because his prior conviction for
aggravated battery did not constitute a violent felony. Nevertheless, he provides
no argument in response to the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition as
successive under § 2244(a).
Upon a thorough review of the record, and after consideration of
Hankerson’s brief, we affirm.
We review de novo the availability of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2013).
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Under § 2241, a district court has the power to grant a writ of habeas corpus
to a prisoner in custody in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (d). Under § 2244(a),
No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application
for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person
pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it appears that
the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court
of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus,
except as provided in section 2255.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). In Antonelli v. Warden, we held that a district court erred in
dismissing a petitioner’s second § 2241 petition for the petitioner’s failure to
3
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 4 of 9
obtain our permission to file a second or successive petition for habeas corpus
relief, as § 2241 petitions are not subject to our “gatekeeping” function as § 2255
motions are. 542 F.3d 1348, 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, we
affirmed the district court’s alternative dismissal of the petition under § 2244(a)
upon its finding that the claims in the second petition were “successive.” Id.
at 1352. We concluded that, because the claims raised in the second § 2241
petition previously had been adjudicated on the merits in the first § 2241 petition,
the second § 2241 petition was successive, and the district court properly dismissed
it under § 2244(a). Id.
Under the Sentencing Guidelines,
A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least
eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant
offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony
that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and
(3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a
crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
The term “crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state
law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,
that—
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force against the person of another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves
use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that
presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.
4
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 5 of 9
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). We have explained that this definition of a “crime of
violence” is “substantially the same” as the definition of a “violent felony” in the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). United States v.
Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971, 975 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012).
In Begay, the Supreme Court considered whether a New Mexico DUI
conviction constituted a “violent felony” under the ACCA. 553 U.S. at 139-40,
128 S.Ct. at 1583-84. The Supreme Court interpreted the enumerated list of
burglary, arson, extortion, and the use of explosives as having a limiting effect on
the residual clause, “or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential
risk of physical injury to another.” Id. at 141-43, 128 S.Ct. at 1584-85. The Court
then concluded that the residual clause did not cover all crimes that involved a
“serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” but only those crimes that
were “roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed” to the
enumerated list of crimes. Id. at 142, 128 S.Ct. at 1584-85 (citation omitted). The
Court also noted that all of the ACCA’s enumerated crimes “typically involve
purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct.” Id. at 144-45, 128 S.Ct. at 1586
(quotation marks omitted). By contrast, New Mexico’s DUI statute did not involve
such conduct, and, thus, did not qualify as a “violent felony” under
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Id. at 145-48, 128 S.Ct. at 1586-88.
5
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 6 of 9
A one-year statute of limitations applies to the filing of habeas corpus
petitions and motions to vacate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1), 2255(f). The limitation
period runs from the date on which (1) the judgment of conviction became final;
(2) an unconstitutional impediment to filing was removed; (3) a new retroactively
applicable right was initially recognized by the Supreme Court; or (4) facts
supporting new claims could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence, whichever date is latest. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1), 2255(f). The
one-year statute of limitations applies to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Peoples v.
Chatman, 393 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a state prisoner’s
§ 2241 habeas petition was subject to the one-year statute of limitations in
§ 2244(d)(1)); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1058-62 (11th Cir. 2003)
(holding that there was a single habeas corpus remedy for state prisoners governed
by both § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and that, thus, the habeas corpus remedy
authorized by § 2241 was subject to the restrictions of § 2254).
The district court’s power to grant a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is
limited by the “savings clause” of § 2255(e), which states,
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who
is authorized to apply for relief by [a § 2255 motion], 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.
6
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 7 of 9
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). When a prisoner previously has filed a § 2255 motion to
vacate, he must apply for and receive permission from the court of appeals before
filing a successive § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255(h). Such
restrictions on successive § 2255 motions, standing alone, do not render that
section “inadequate or ineffective” within the meaning of the savings clause.
Gilbert, 640 F.3d at 1307-08. In Wofford, we stated that a petitioner meets the
requirements of the savings clause when: (1) the petitioner’s claim is based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the holding of that Supreme
Court decision establishes that the petitioner was convicted of a nonexistent
offense; and (3) circuit law squarely foreclosed such a claim at the time it
otherwise should have been raised at the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255
motion. 177 F.3d at 1244.
In Gilbert, we held that the savings clause of § 2255(e) “does not authorize a
federal prisoner to bring in a § 2241 petition a claim, which would otherwise be
barred by § 2255(h), that the sentencing guidelines were misapplied in a way that
resulted in a longer sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum.” 640 F.3d
at 1323. We initially noted that the text of the savings clause does not indicate that
it authorizes the filing of a § 2241 petition to remedy a guidelines miscalculation
that can no longer be raised in a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1307. Furthermore, the bar
on filing a successive § 2255 motion could not render that section “inadequate or
7
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 8 of 9
ineffective” to test the legality of a prisoner’s detention, or otherwise “the savings
clause would eviscerate” the statutory bar on successive motions to vacate. Id.
at 1308. We emphasized that one of the principle purposes of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) was to ensure a greater
degree of finality for convictions, and that permitting prisoners to use the savings
clause to assert guidelines-based attacks after the denial of a first § 2255 motion
would wreak havoc on the finality interests that Congress sought to protect by
imposing a statutory bar on successive motions. Id. at 1310-11. We also rejected
Gilbert’s argument that he was “actually innocent” of being a career offender
because “[a] defendant who is convicted and then has the § 4B1.1 career offender
enhancement, or any other guidelines enhancement, applied in the calculation of
his sentence has not been convicted of being guilty of the enhancement. If
guidelines enhancements were crimes, they would have to be charged in the
indictment and proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1320. See
also Spencer v. United States, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 6234529 (11th Cir. Nov. 14,
2014) (en banc) (holding that a Begay claim is not cognizable in a § 2255 motion
unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum).
The district court did not err in dismissing Hankerson’s instant § 2241
petition as successive under § 2244(a). The district court adjudicated the merits of
his Begay argument in his first § 2241 petition. While he now relies on Begay to
8
Case: 14-12896 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 9 of 9
challenge a separate prior conviction for aggravated battery instead of the prior
DUI conviction he sought to challenge in his initial § 2241 petition, the district
court’s reasoning for rejecting his reliance on Begay—timeliness and failure to
satisfy the requirements of Wofford and Gilbert—was not limited to his challenge
to his DUI conviction and would apply equally to his current challenge to his
aggravated-battery conviction. Thus, because the district court previously
adjudicated his Begay claim on the merits in his first § 2241 petition, his second
§ 2241 petition again raising Begay as the basis for challenging his career-offender
sentence was successive, and the district court properly dismissed it under
§ 2244(a).
AFFIRMED.
9