Case: 22-40834 Document: 00516812701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 7, 2023
No. 22-40834 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Raymond Garcia Carmona, Jr.,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Beaumont Medium,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CV-184
______________________________
Before Dennis, Elrod, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Raymond Garcia Carmona, Jr., a federal inmate, appeals the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged the sentence set forth in
his amended judgment for his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana and
distribution and possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40834 Document: 00516812701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 22-40834
marijuana. The district court dismissed Carmona’s § 2241 petition after
determining that Carmona’s challenge to his sentence should properly be
brought as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Carmona failed to show that his § 2241
petition qualified under the § 2255 savings clause, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain a § 2255 motion from Carmona because he was
convicted in a different district, and his § 2241 petition was barred by the
waiver provision in his plea agreement.
On appeal, Carmona argues that the district court committed a
structural error by changing the imprisonment terms in the amended
judgment to run consecutively rather than concurrently and that the resulting
sentence violated the terms of his plea agreement. We review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). Section 2255’s savings
clause permits prisoners to challenge the validity of their convictions under
§ 2241 if they show that § 2255’s remedy “is inadequate or ineffective.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001). The savings clause applies if the petitioner’s claim (1) “is
based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes
that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and
(2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have
been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-
Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. The district court correctly concluded that
Carmona does not meet this test. The district court also lacked jurisdiction
to construe Carmona’s § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion because Carmona
was sentenced in the Northern District of Texas. See United States v. Parker,
927 F.3d 374, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2019); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th
Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2