UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MACKESE WALKER SPEIGHT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:18-cv-00816-MHH-GMB ) P. BRADLEY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Borden entered a report in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this

petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 13). On June 15, 2020, Ms. Speight filed objections to the report. (Doc. 17). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). In her objections, Ms. Speight argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries- Suncoast, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2017) (en banc), does not eliminate the Court’s ability to consider this § 2241 action. The Court disagrees. In McCarthan, the Eleventh Circuit explained that § 2255(e), “[t]he saving clause,” offers a federal prisoner “relief only when his ‘remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’

(e).” McCarthan,

. The Eleventh Circuit held that adverse circuit

precedent does not prevent a criminal defendant from “test[ing] the legality of [her] detention” in a § 2255 motion to vacate because in a motion to vacate, a defendant may ask for reconsideration of the adverse authority. McCarthan,

.

If a defendant could have challenged a sentencing enhancement in her § 2255 motion by asking the district court to revisit adverse authority concerning the enhancement, then the § 2255 motion was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her detention. McCarthan,

.

Here, Ms. Speight, citing post-sentencing changes in the law, argues that the sentences on her convictions under

(c) should not have been enhanced. (Doc. 7). Under McCarthan, Ms. Speight may not raise the argument in

a § 2241 habeas petition because she could have argued for a change in the law regarding the enhancements as a means of sentence reduction in her § 2255 motion. Therefore, the Court overrules Ms. Speight’s objections and adopts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. By separate order, the Court will

dismiss this § 2241 action for lack of jurisdiction. In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings, this Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. If she wishes to appeal, Ms. Speight must request a certificate from

the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. DONE and ORDERED this August 31, 2020.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE