[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 14, 2011
No. 10-14411 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00077-WTH-GRJ
PATRICK BASS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 14, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Lemuel Bass, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals from the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Following Bass’s federal conviction, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
temporarily transferred him to the custody of Georgia to face state charges for
which he was ultimately convicted. In his § 2241 petition, Bass attacked the
validity of that state conviction on the ground that he had been improperly
transferred to state custody. Specifically, he argued that the writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum authorizing the transfer did not contain an official seal and did
not address the correct federal correctional facility and warden. The district court
denied Bass’s petition, finding that even if the transfer was improper, that would
not invalidate the state conviction.1
We agree with the district court that, even if Bass’s transfer to state custody
was improper, that would not invalidate his state conviction. As the government
explains, a defendant forcibly abducted by the government for purposes of
bringing him in the court’s presence will not impair that court’s power to try him.
See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 660–62 (1992). It stands to
reason, as the district court did here, that because even a forcible abduction would
1
“The availability of habeas relief under § 2241 presents a question of law we review de
novo.” Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
not entitle Bass to relief, neither do the technical form defects about which he
complains. To the extent Bass seeks to collaterally attack his federal conviction,
he has failed to satisfy the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Darby v.
Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of Bass’s § 2241 petition.
AFFIRMED.
3