Molina v. Marques

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11120
Summary Calendar

Alonzo Molina,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Rick Marques, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution
Big Spring,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-120

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alonzo Molina, federal prisoner # 93283-280, appeals the district
court’s dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
challenging his federal sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-11120 Document: 00515594332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

No. 19-11120
2
distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court
determined that Molina’s attack on his sentence could not proceed under
§ 2241 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause. As Molina’s
sentence was imposed by the Western District of Texas, the district court
also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review it under § 2255.
Because Molina attacks the legality rather than the conditions of his
federal sentence, he must seek relief under § 2255, and he must do so in the
court that sentenced him. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.
2000). The district court accordingly lacked jurisdiction over Molina’s
§ 2241 petition. See id. at 452.
Furthermore, Molina may not invoke § 2255(e)’s savings clause to
proceed under § 2241 because he cannot demonstrate that, in light of a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, he “was convicted for
conduct that did not constitute a crime.” Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827,
831 (5th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court holdings Molina cites—Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)—are not retroactive.
See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); United States
v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 2015). Issues of retroactivity aside,
Molina’s claims stem from his disagreement with how his sentence was
calculated, which does not implicate his conviction; therefore, the savings
clause cannot afford him relief. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 427.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-11120 Document: 00515594332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2020