Case: 17-30815 Document: 00514572132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-30815 July 26, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
TRAMAINE MONDALE BEADLES,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
WARDEN USP POLLOCK,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:17-CV-809
Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Tramaine Mondale Beadles, federal prisoner # 15213-031, was convicted
of bank robbery by force, violence, or intimidation, and he was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of 210 months. He now appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he argued that, in light of
the decisions in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and Sharbutt
v. Vasquez, 136 S. Ct. 2538 (2016), his prior burglary convictions are no longer
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-30815 Document: 00514572132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2018
No. 17-30815
categorized as violent felonies and cannot support the career offender
enhancement of his sentence. He asserts that the district court erred in
determining that he has not demonstrated that he was entitled to proceed
under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Our review is de novo. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th
Cir. 2005). Under the savings clause of § 2255(e), a § 2241 petition may be
considered if Beadles shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To satisfy § 2255(e)’s saving clause,
Beadles must establish that (1) his claim is “based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been
convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and (2) his claim was “foreclosed by circuit
law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal,
or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Beadles has failed to make the requisite showing. See id. at 904. We
have repeatedly held that challenges to the validity of a sentencing
enhancement do not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255(e) See, e.g., In re
Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2