Jamal Hudson v. Edge

Case: 18-40743 Document: 00514973386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-40743 FILED Summary Calendar May 28, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JAMAL DERRICK HUDSON, Petitioner - Appellant v. EDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CV-161

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jamal Derrick Hudson, federal prisoner # 55796-112, was convicted of numerous charges of conspiracy to commit access-device fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029, 1344. He was sentenced, inter alia, to 116- months’ imprisonment. Hudson challenges the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which claimed his convictions were invalid because trial was held on Veterans’ Day, a legal holiday. He contends he should be Case: 18-40743 Document: 00514973386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2019

No. 18-40743 permitted to raise this claim in a § 2241 petition because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief is inadequate to address it.

The dismissal of a § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Generally, § 2241 is used to “challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed”, Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted), and claims of trial and sentencing errors are not properly raised in a § 2241 petition, Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 276, 877–78 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

Under the savings clause of § 2255(e), however, if Hudson can demonstrate the § 2255 remedy would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”, he may instead be permitted to bring a habeas-corpus claim pursuant to § 2241. Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901 (emphasis omitted) (quoting § 2255(e)). To make this showing, Hudson must raise a claim that: “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense”; and “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion”. Id. at 904. Hudson fails to make this showing.

AFFIRMED.