Brace v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5023
10th Cir.2011Background
- Brace, a federal prisoner, pro se, challenged district court’s dismissal of his §2241 petition seeking relief from his money laundering conviction.
- Brace was convicted in 1996 in the Western District of Texas on four counts for laundering purported drug proceeds and sentenced to 175 months.
- The Fifth Circuit initially reversed, but en banc affirmed Brace’s conviction in United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
- Brace first challenged his sentence under §2255 in 1999; the motion was denied; a 2005 §2255 motion was deemed unauthorized as second or successive.
- Brace filed multiple §2241 petitions thereafter; in 2008 he filed the instant §2241 petition in the District of Kansas asserting Santos-based interpretation of money laundering.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding §2255 was not an inadequate or ineffective remedy; the Ninth Circuit affirmed bracketed logic of savings clause limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2255 is inadequate to challenge Brace's Santos claim | Brace argues §2255 is inadequate because he cannot raise Santos-based issues in a second §2255 motion. | Defendants contend Prost and related precedent foreclose treating §2255 as inadequate for this argument. | No; §2255 not shown inadequate; §2241 dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Santos-based interpretation can be raised under §2241 savings clause | Brace relies on Santos to argue a different interpretation of proceeds requiring profits. | Savings clause does not permit this new statutory interpretation challenge via §2241. | Held that §2241 not available for this Santos-based challenge. |
| Whether the Reyes-Requena standard applies to Brace | Brace invokes Reyes-Requena to show actual innocence and §2255 inadequacy. | Court declined to adopt Reyes-Requena as the standard for §2255 inadequacy. | Reyes-Requena not adopted; §2255 not inadequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (savings clause context for §2241 and §2255)
- Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (limited use of savings clause; helps define adequacy of §2255)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court 2008) (proceeds vs profits interpretation in money laundering context)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (actual innocence standard in savings clause discussion)