Hammoud v. Ma'at

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50914
Summary Calendar

Mohamad Youssef Hammoud,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Warden Serkou Ma'at, Federal Correctional Institute
Bastrop,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:18-CV-751

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mohamad Youssef Hammoud appeals the denial, for lack of
jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 2002 conviction
for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. See

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
November 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50914 Document: 00515655067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2020

No. 19-50914
2
18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Hammoud sought to proceed under § 2241 in lieu of
filing a second § 2255 motion challenging that conviction, arguing that he
should be deemed to have satisfied § 2255(e)’s “savings clause” because he
is actually innocent in light of Congress’s 2004 amendment § 2339B, which
requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew the organization
he was aiding was engaged in terroristic activity.
A prisoner may challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241
petition if he shows that the remedy under § 2255 “is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). To satisfy
§ 2255(e), the prisoner must show, relevantly, that his claim “is based on a
retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the
petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” Reyes-Requena
v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Conceding that his claims
do not rely on any retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision,
Hammoud instead invites us, as he did the district court, to expand Reyes-
Requena to encompass statutory amendments by Congress as well, arguing
that he is actually innocent of providing material support under the 2004
amendment to § 2339B.
There was no error in the district court’s determination that it was
bound by Reyes-Requena. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.
2003); United States v. Willingham, 310 F.3d 367, 371 (5th Cir. 2002). And,
following our well-established rule of orderliness, we decline to revisit Reyes-
Requena, as Hammoud cites no intervening statutory amendment or decision
by the Supreme Court or our en banc court casting doubt on Reyes-Requena’s
formulation of the savings clause test. See United States v. Quiroga-
Hernandez, 698 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 2012). Hammoud’s reliance on
Barrios v. Centaur, L.L.C., 942 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2019), is unavailing because
that case did not implicate our rule of orderliness.
Case: 19-50914 Document: 00515655067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2020

No. 19-50914
3
Relying on our binding precedent in Reyes-Requena, the district court
correctly dismissed Hammoud’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.
See Christopher, 342 F.3d at 381. Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-50914 Document: 00515655067 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2020