Cato v. Holland, 6:13-cv-00034

Cato filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his federal conviction and sentence while confined in U.S. Penitentiary-McCreary.
His prior history includes a 1992 conspiracy to distribute cocaine conviction and a 420-month sentence with 5-year supervised release (Texas case).
He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction via §2255 in 1997–2000; later §2241 attempts were dismissed or transferred as unauthorized or inappropriate.
Cato relies on DePierre v. United States to argue that the indictment and jury instructions inadequately described the drug type/quantity.
The court screens habeas petitions under a lenient standard but must deny relief if the petition shows no §2241 relief is available; the court analyzes whether §2255’s savings clause permits relief.
The court ultimately concludes that none of the doctrines cited (including Sawyer, Gilbert, and DePierre) authorize §2241 relief for his claims, and denies the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2241 savings clause permits review of conviction/indictment issues post-DePierre.	Cato argues DePierre retroactively invalidates the conviction.	Holland argues savings clause does not apply to DePierre-based challenges.	No relief under §2241; savings clause not applicable.
Whether Cato may attack an enhanced, career-offender sentence under §2241.	Cato asserts actual innocence and seeks resentencing under §2241.	Court rejects that§2241 may challenge non-capital sentence enhancements.	Not permissible under §2241; sentencing challenges remain outside its scope.
Whether DePierre retroactivity applies to collateral review of the underlying drug conspiracy conviction.	Cato contends DePierre affects retroactivity of the conviction.	DePierre is not retroactive on collateral review; does not authorize §2241 relief.	DePierre not retroactive on collateral review; §2241 relief denied.

DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (U.S. 2011) (limits on applying cocaine base interpretation to retroactive relief; not retroactive for §2241)
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1995) (limits on savings clause retroactivity for new statutory interpretations)
Lott v. Davis, 105 F. App’x 13 (6th Cir. 2004) (savings clause not available where no retroactive change in law)
Townsend v. Davis, 83 F. App’x 728 (6th Cir. 2003) (actual innocence showing via retroactive change in law)
Paulino v. United States, 352 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2003) (actual innocence and savings clause standards)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (actual innocence requires new, retroactive rule showing)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (actual innocence exception limited to capital-sentencing contexts)
Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (savings clause not available for career-offender §2241 challenges; en banc history noted)
Jalili v. United States, 925 F.2d 889 (6th Cir. 1999) (limits on §2241 scope to execution-related issues)