[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-15161 FEB 21, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02482-TWT
ANTHONY MATTOX,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 21, 2012)
Before CARNES, PRYOR, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Mattox, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Mattox pleaded guilty to, and was
convicted of, conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and the
district court sentenced him to 190 months imprisonment. Mattox filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which the court
dismissed. He then filed a § 2241 habeas corpus petition, contending that the
court had improperly enhanced his guidelines range as a career offender under
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2002). The court also
dismissed that petition, and this is Mattox’s appeal.
We review de novo the availability of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1280 (11th Cir. 2006). “Typically,
collateral attacks on the validity of a federal sentence must be brought under [28
U.S.C.] § 2255.” Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). “When a prisoner has previously filed a § 2255 motion . . . , he must
apply for and receive permission from us before filing a successive § 2255
motion.” Id. at 945; see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). But § 2255 permits a federal
prisoner to file a § 2241 habeas corpus petition if an otherwise available remedy
under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e). “[C]onsequently, a petitioner who has filed and been denied a
2
previous § 2255 motion may not circumvent the successive motion restrictions
simply by filing a petition under § 2241.” Darby, 405 F.3d at 945.
In Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc),
we held that § 2255(e) does not permit a “federal prisoner to challenge his
sentence in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [habeas corpus] petition when he cannot raise that
challenge in a § 2255 motion because of the § 2255(h) bar against second and
successive motions. . . . at least where the sentence the prisoner is attacking does
not exceed the statutory maximum.” We have not granted Mattox permission to
file what would be his second § 2255 motion, and his 190-month prison sentence
is below the statutory maximum of 40 years, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B)(iii),
846. The district court did not err in dismissing Mattox’s § 2241 habeas corpus
petition.
AFFIRMED.1
1
Mattox’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
3