IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DANIEL GALLANT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-5-SMY ) WARDEN D. SPROUL, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Petitioner Daniel Gallant filed the instant action pursuant to

to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence based on Mathis v. United States,

(2016) and United States v. De La Torre,

(7th Cir. 2019) (Doc. 1). In 2005, Gallant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of

(a) (“Count 3”) and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of

(c) (“Count 4”). United States v. Gallant, No. 1:04-cr-149-TWP-TAB-1 (S.D. Ind.). He was subject to a higher mandatory minimum sentence under § 841(b) and was sentenced to a 20-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence for Count 3 and a consecutive 5-year sentence for Count 4. Id. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Gallant filed a habeas petition pursuant to

, which was denied on the merits in March 2022. Gallant v. United States, No. 1:20- cv-609-TWP-TAB,

, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2022). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts, upon preliminary consideration by the district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) authorizes district courts to apply the Rules to other habeas corpus cases. After reviewing the Petition, the undersigned concludes that this case is subject to dismissal. Gallant asserts that his prior convictions are overbroad and moves to vacate his sentence. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus under

may not be employed to raise claims of legal error in conviction or sentencing; they may only challenge the execution of a sentence. See Valona v. United States,

(7th Cir. 1998). Consequently, aside from the direct appeal process, a prisoner who has been convicted in federal court is limited to challenging his conviction and sentence by bringing a motion pursuant to

in the court which sentenced him. See Jones yv. Hendrix,

, 1868-69 (2023) (abrogating In re Davenport,

(7th Cir. 1998). In other words, Gallant may not collaterally attack a federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. Jones, 143 S.Ct. at 1868. Accordingly, Gallant’s Petition for habeas relief under

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 16, 2025 Aer Goll STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2