Albert Williams v. Warden, Federal Bureau of Prison
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7339
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Williams had prior Florida burglary convictions (1989, 1990) and a 1986 violent history; in 1997 Miami police encountered him with a gun.
- He was convicted in 1998 of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) with an ACCA enhancement based on three prior predicates.
- The PSR applied the ACCA enhancement; Williams received 293 months; he did not object at sentencing or on direct appeal.
- Williams pursued multiple § 2255 actions; later challenges centered on whether his Florida burglary convictions qualified as ACCA predicates under Begay and Shepard.
- After various court decisions, Williams filed a § 2241 petition under the savings clause, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the savings clause is a jurisdictional bar and that Williams cannot demonstrate that his initial § 2255 motion was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the § 2255(e) savings clause jurisdictional? | Williams contends savings clause permits §2241 challenge to §924(e) sentence. | Government contends savings clause is a jurisdictional limit on §2241 petitions. | Yes; savings clause is jurisdictional. |
| Does Begay constitute retroactive circuit-law busting to satisfy Wofford for §2241 relief? | Begay changes test for ACCA residual clause; should allow relief. | Begay is not circuit-law-busting; no retroactive override of circuit precedent. | No; Begay alone did not satisfy Wofford’s requirements. |
| Are Williams's 1989 and 1990 Florida burglaries proper ACCA predicates under Begay/James? | Burglary convictions should not count as violent felonies under ACCA. | Prior Eleventh Circuit decisions and Begay context do not foreclose argument; the claim was not foreclosed. | Williams cannot revive the claim under the savings clause; the district court lacked jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (tests 'purposeful, violent, and aggressive' conduct for ACCA residual clause)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (limits ACCA burglary to structure-entry offenses)
- Hill v. United States, 863 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1989) (earlier ACCA burglary categorization later abrogated by Taylor)
- Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (two-step framework for savings clause applicability; circuit-law-busting test in dicta)
- Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc; clarifies savings clause limits and that it does not cover Guideline-sentencing claims within statutory maximum)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (retroactivity context for 'nonexistent offense' under Bailey-line claims)
- United States v. James, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (ACCA residual clause discussion relevant to prior circuit interpretations)
- Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2012) (savings clause applicability to post-Begay challenges)