Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14997
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00398-JDW-TBS
JIMMY LEE FIELDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP 1,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 15, 2015)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Jimmy Lee Fields, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The
district court dismissed the petition because Mr. Fields had previously been denied
relief on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and he failed to show that he was entitled to
pursue his claims under § 2255(e)’s savings clause. After a review of the record
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
Mr. Fields was convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to possess cocaine and
cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district
court sentenced him to a statutorily-mandated term of life imprisonment under 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), because of his crime of conviction and his prior felony
drug offenses. We denied Mr. Fields relief on direct appeal. See United States v.
Caldwell, 204 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 1999) (table decision).
In 2000, Mr. Fields filed his first § 2255 petition, which the district court
denied on all grounds. We denied him a certificate of appealability on that petition
in 2003. Since that time, Mr. Fields has filed a variety of additional motions in the
district and circuit courts seeking relief from his sentence. None of them proved
meritorious.
In August of 2010, Mr. Fields filed the instant § 2241 petition, arguing that
he is “innocent” of his “enhanced life sentence” under § 841(b)(1)(A) because (1)
2
Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 3 of 6
during his case, the government filed a defective notice of his prior convictions
under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and (2) the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is retroactive and
no longer requires a mandatory life sentence for defendants with convictions like
his. The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition, finding that Mr. Fields was
attacking the validity of his sentence as opposed to the manner of its execution,
that he was barred from seeking relief under § 2255 because it would be a
successive motion to vacate, and that he failed to demonstrate that he could pursue
his claims under § 2241 because he had not satisfied the savings clause under §
2255(e) (i.e., he had not shown that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention). Mr. Fields now appeals the district court’s dismissal.
II
We review de novo a district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. See Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000). A federal
prisoner must ordinarily bring any collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence
under § 2255. See Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). A
federal prisoner, however, may file a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241 under the
limited circumstances stated in § 2255(e). See §§ 2241(a) & 2255(e).
Relief under § 2241, however, is available only if the prisoner can show that
a § 2255 proceeding is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention,” as required by § 2255(e). See Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-
3
Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 4 of 6
Medium, 738 F.3d 1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2013). This is a jurisdictional matter that
must be decided before a court can address the merits of a petitioner’s claims. See
id. at 1262.
“The existence of the statutory bar on second and successive motions cannot
mean that § 2255 is ‘inadequate or ineffective’ to test the legality of [the
prisoner’s] detention within the meaning of the savings clause.” Gilbert v. United
States, 640 F.3d 1293, 1308 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Instead, to show that a
prior § 2255 motion was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention,” Mr. Fields must show that (1) binding circuit precedent squarely
foreclosed his claim during his sentencing, his direct appeal, and his first § 2255
proceeding; (2) the United States Supreme Court overturned that circuit precedent
in a decision issued after his first § 2255 proceeding; (3) the Supreme Court’s new
rule applies retroactively on collateral review; and (4) as a result of the Supreme
Court’s new rule, his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum authorized by
Congress. See Bryant, 738 F.3d at 1274.
III
Mr. Fields argues that the Supreme Court’s decisions in DePierre v. United
States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (2011), and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563
(2010), are retroactive and establish that he was convicted of a now nonexistent
offense. We disagree. First, he has not shown that these decisions are retroactive
4
Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 5 of 6
on collateral review. Second, even if they are, he has not demonstrated that they
overturned circuit precedent or apply to the facts of his case.
In DePierre, the Supreme Court held that the term “cocaine base,” as used in
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), refers not only to crack cocaine, but also to any cocaine in
its chemically-basic form. 131 S. Ct. at 2227-28. Thus, the term “cocaine base
reaches more broadly” than the term “crack cocaine” alone. Id. at 2232 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In Carachuri-Rosendo, the Supreme Court ruled—in the context of an
immigration proceeding—that an alien’s second or subsequent simple drug
possession conviction was not an “aggravated felony” conviction under 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(a)(3), because the simple possession offense had not been enhanced based
on the fact of a prior conviction. 560 U.S. at 2580.
Here, the indictment against Mr. Fields alleged that he distributed “a
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and cocaine base,” and the
evidence at trial showed that his offense involved both powder and crack cocaine.
Mr. Fields was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine and cocaine base with
intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and he received a sentence
of life imprisonment because he also had been convicted of two prior qualifying
drug offenses. In short, DePierre and Carachuri-Rosendo have no impact on Mr.
5
Case: 11-14997 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 6 of 6
Fields’ conviction or sentence, and these Supreme Court decisions do not entitle
him to pursue collateral relief under § 2241 via the savings clause in § 2255(e).
Mr. Fields also argues that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies to his
case. In Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), the Supreme Court held
that the Fair Sentencing Act applies to offenders who committed crimes prior the
Act’s effective date but were sentenced after that date, even if the sentencing
occurred prior to the issuance of the new Sentencing Guidelines based upon the
Act. See id. at 2335-36. The Fair Sentencing Act took effect on August 3, 2010.
See id. at 2326.
Mr. Fields, however, was sentenced in 1996, well before August of 2010,
and the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply to offenders who committed their
crimes and were sentenced prior to August 3, 2010. See United States v.
Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 542 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d
374, 377-78 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, his Fair Sentencing Act claim fails.
IV
Because Mr. Fields has failed to demonstrate that he satisfies § 2255(e)’s
savings clause, the district court did not err by dismissing his § 2241 petition for
habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.
6