Terrell v. United States

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 7, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
BROOKS TERRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 21-1254
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV–01090-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Brooks James Terrell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-1254 Document: 010110587768 Date Filed: 10/07/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal and affirm the district court’s dismissal of his
§ 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.
In 2001, Terrell was convicted in the District of South Carolina of
attempted car jacking resulting in serious bodily injury, possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, using and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence,
and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. United States v. Terrell,
21 F. App’x 216 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished disposition). The Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit denied Terrell’s direct appeal and, thereafter, denied his
request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Id.; United States v.
Terrell, 60 F. App’x 484 (4th Cir. 2003).
On May 18, 2020, Terrell filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The claims Terrell sought to raise in his § 2241
petition were collateral challenges to the sentence imposed by the South Carolina
district court in 2001. Terrell recognizes he can only use § 2241 to collaterally
attack his sentence if he meets the standard set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
Relying on this court’s opinion in Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584-86 (10th
Cir. 2011), the Colorado district court concluded Terrell failed to meet his burden
under § 2255(e) to show the remedy afforded him under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
-2-
Appellate Case: 21-1254 Document: 010110587768 Date Filed: 10/07/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Our review of the entire record confirms that Terrell has failed to show that
§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. His challenge to his sentence, therefore,
cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of
Terrell’s § 2241 petition for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-
Appellate Case: 21-1254 Document: 010110587768 Date Filed: 10/07/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --