Ochsner v. Fleming
Ochsner v. Fleming
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11127 Conference Calendar
LARRY LEE OCHSNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
LES FLEMING, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CV-490-E -------------------- December 11, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Lee Ochsner, federal prisoner # 19267-077, appeals
from the district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas corpus petition and from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion. Ochsner argues that the factual basis of his
guilty plea to using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a drug-trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)-(2),
was insufficient in the light of Bailey.** Ochsner argues that
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. ** Bailey v. United States,
516 U.S. 137(1995). No. 01-11127 -2-
he should be allowed to bring his claim in a
28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas petition under the “savings clause” of
28 U.S.C. § 2255.
“[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that
is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision
which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of
a nonexistent offense and (ii) that 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 v. United States,
243 F.3d 893, 904(5th Cir. 2001).
A prior unsuccessful
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion does not render
28 U.S.C. § 2255inadequate or ineffective. Tolliver v. Dobre,
211 F.3d 876, 878(5th Cir. 2000). The petitioner bears the burden
of affirmatively showing that the
28 U.S.C. § 2255remedy is
inadequate or ineffective. Pack v. Yusuff,
218 F.3d 448, 452(5th Cir. 2000).
The district court determined that Ochsner’s Bailey claim
was addressed on the merits in a prior
28 U.S.C. § 2255proceeding. Ochsner’s prior unsuccessful
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion
does not render
28 U.S.C. § 2255inadequate or ineffective. See
Tolliver,
211 F.3d at 878.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished