Abram v. McConnell, 3f4th783

Samuel Abram was convicted by jury of multiple bank-robbery–related offenses, including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Abram did not challenge the § 922(g) conviction on direct appeal and a § 2255 motion to vacate was denied in the Florida court.
After Rehaif v. United States held that § 922(g) requires proof that a defendant knew his prohibited status, Abram filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing his indictment failed to allege the required knowledge element.
The district court dismissed Abram’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction under the § 2255(e) savings-clause framework.
The Fifth Circuit applied its three-part Santillana test for savings-clause relief and focused on the third prong: whether the intervening decision (Rehaif) showed Abram might have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.
The court affirmed dismissal because Abram (1) did not argue he was unaware of his felony status and (2) offered no evidence or theory explaining why he might lack such knowledge, so he failed to meet the savings-clause burden.

Issue	Abram's Argument	McConnell's Argument	Held
Whether Abram may invoke § 2255(e) savings clause to bring a § 2241 Rehaif claim	Indictment omitted Rehaif knowledge element, so § 2255 is inadequate and § 2241 relief is available	Abram failed to satisfy the Santillana savings-clause requirements; § 2255(e) bars § 2241	Denied: Abram failed the third Santillana prong (nonexistent-offense) and thus cannot proceed under § 2255(e)
Whether omission of the knowledge element in the indictment alone shows potential conviction of a nonexistent offense	The indictment’s omission demonstrates Rehaif error that could render the conviction nonexistent	Omission alone is insufficient without a claim/evidence that Abram lacked knowledge of felony status	Held: Indictment omission cannot overcome Abram’s failure to (a) assert he lacked knowledge and (b) provide supporting theory or evidence

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (Supreme Court requires proof a defendant knew his prohibited status under § 922(g))
Santillana v. Upton, 846 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2017) (articulating the three-part § 2255(e) savings-clause test)
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (§ 2241 typically challenges execution, not conviction)
Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2011) (examples of actual-innocence arguments under savings clause)
Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010) (petitioner bears burden to prove savings-clause elements)
Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for § 2241 dismissal on pleadings)
United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting difficulty of proving lack of knowledge for convicted felons)