Case: 12-10459 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10459
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00766-AT
ORASMA BERRELL ANDREWS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN USP #I,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 2, 2012)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10459 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Orasma Berrell Andrews, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We affirm the dismissal, but on different grounds.1
Andrews challenges a 1994 Georgia drug conviction that was used to
enhance his current federal sentence. A petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 is available only to a petitioner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Andrews fully served the sentence for his 1994
drug conviction. He is a federal prisoner serving a sentence that was issued by a
federal court, and a § 2254 petition is not available to him. See Means v.
Alabama, 209 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (a prisoner who
challenges an expired state sentence that was used to enhance his current federal
sentence must bring suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than § 2254).
Even construing his pro se petition as a one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255, relief is still unavailable. The Supreme Court has instructed that habeas
relief is generally not available to a petitioner who challenges a past conviction
and fully expired sentence that was used to enhance a subsequent federal sentence:
1
We may affirm on any grounds supported by the record. Koziara v. City of Casselberry,
392 F.3d 1302, 1306 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 12-10459 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 3 of 3
If . . . a prior conviction used to enhance a federal sentence is no
longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right because the
defendant failed to pursue those remedies while they were available
(or because the defendant did so unsuccessfully), then that defendant
is without recourse. The presumption of validity that attached to the
prior conviction at the time of sentencing is conclusive, and the
defendant may not collaterally attack his prior conviction through a
motion under § 2255.
Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 382, 121 S. Ct. 1578, 1583 (2001). The
majority in Daniels recognized an exception for challenges concerning the failure
to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant. Id. at 382, 121 S. Ct. at 1583 (citing
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963)). But the exception
does not apply here because Andrews was represented by counsel during the 1994
proceedings. Andrews cannot challenge his prior conviction under 28 U.S.C. §§
2254 or 2255.
AFFIRMED.
3