Collins v. Myers, 2:19-cv-01040

Collins pled guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(A)(1)).
He was sentenced to 168 months on the drug count and 60 months on the § 924(c) count, to run consecutively; the convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied.
Collins filed multiple § 2255 motions and sentence-reduction requests, all denied; one denial is currently on appeal in his criminal docket.
He filed this pro se § 2241 petition invoking the § 2255 savings clause, arguing he is entitled to relief under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis (2019).
The Magistrate Judge recommended denial and dismissal with prejudice because Davis does not affect Collins’s conviction: his § 924(c) plea did not rely on the statute’s residual clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Collins may proceed under § 2241 via the § 2255 savings clause based on Davis	Collins contends Davis is retroactive and invalidates his § 924(c) predicate, rendering § 2255 inadequate	Government argues Davis is inapplicable because Collins’s conviction did not rely on § 924(c)’s residual clause, so § 2255 is not inadequate	Denied — savings clause not satisfied; § 2241 relief unavailable
Whether Collins’s § 924(c) plea implicated the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B)	Collins’s claim assumes his § 924(c) conviction depended on an invalid residual-clause "crime of violence" definition	Government: Collins pled to possession in connection with drug trafficking, not to using/ carrying during a crime of violence; residual clause not implicated	Held: plea was under § 924(c)(A)(1) tied to drug trafficking; Davis’s invalidation of the residual clause is irrelevant

Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing § 2241 challenges to the execution or duration of sentence from § 2255 attacks on sentence legality)
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (§ 2241 is not a substitute for § 2255; burden on petitioner to show § 2255 is inadequate)
Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000) (sentencing errors generally must be raised under § 2255, not § 2241)
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (articulating two-part test to invoke § 2255 savings clause)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (Supreme Court: § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Chapman, 851 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2017) (drug trafficking offenses do not implicate the § 924(c) "crime of violence" definition for enhanced penalties)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports)