Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Warden, FCC Coleman

McCarthan pled guilty in 2003 to felon-in-possession; ACCA requires at least 15 years if three qualifying prior offenses; he had five potential ACCA predicates, including a 1992 Florida escape; sentencing imposed 211 months under ACCA; he first attacked sentence via §2255 for ineffective assistance and later via §2241 after Begay/Chambers narrowed ACCA terms; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the savings clause; court addresses whether Bryant v. Warden framework allows §2241 relief and whether jurisdiction exists.
He previously challenged ACCA status by §2255 petition; after Be gai (Begay) and Chambers, Fla. escape convictions no longer categorically qualify under ACCA; Bryant test governs whether savings clause permits §2241 relief; district court held McCarthan lacked jurisdiction.
McCarthan faced the Bryant steps (1-5) to show the savings clause applies; the court finds he satisfies steps 2, 3, and 5 but not step 4, thus no jurisdiction; the court proceeds to determine the status of McCarthan’s ACCA predicates (notably the 1988 Georgia convictions) and concludes three qualifying offenses remain even after treating the 1992 Florida escape as foreclosed; the district court’s dismissal is affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2255(e) savings clause grants §2241 jurisdiction	McCarthan meets Bryant steps 2-5, retroactivity applies	District court lacked jurisdiction under §2255(e)	Yes, the savings clause applies (jurisdiction exists) — wait for merits?
Whether Bryant step four is satisfied	Even after retroactivity, two or fewer valid predicates plus foreclosed ones remove three, so relief	McCarthan remains with three ACCA predicates despite foreclosures	McCarthan does not meet Bryant step four; relief denied on jurisdictional grounds
Whether McCarthan’s 1988 Georgia cocaine convictions count as separate ACCA predicates	Two separate 1988 Georgia convictions should count separately under ACCA	Converse; they may count as a single predicate under related-case rules	The two Georgia convictions are separate predicates; total remains at least three
Effect of Florida 1992 escape being foreclosed post-Chambers Begay	Foreclosure reduces predicates; still three remain	Foreclosure reduces count but not enough to avoid ACCA; precluded by Gay/Rainey/Chambers	Foreclosure does not defeat the ACCA count; still three predicates
Whether the district court erred in not identifying which convictions supported the ACCA enhancement	Need explicit identification of predicates per due process	Petitioner forfeited; court relied on PSR	We assume reliance on all ACCA-qualifying convictions; lack of identification did not compel relief

Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (retroactivity of Chambers; narrows violent felony definition under ACCA; substantive rule)
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (retroactivity of Begay; narrows ACCA violent-felony scope; substantive rule)
Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (five-step test for applying §2255(e) savings clause to §2241 petitions)
Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc; savings clause limitations on §2255(h) petitions)
Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (limits §2255(e) jurisdictional scope; dependency on savings clause)
United States v. Gay, 251 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2001) (escape as crime of violence under Guideline; predated ACCA interpretation)
United States v. Rainey, 362 F.3d 733 (11th Cir. 2004) (escape considered crime of violence under ACCA/G Guidelines; cross-circuit consistency)
Taylor, 489 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussion of Gay’s reach to Florida escape convictions; ACCA status)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limitations on using PSR contents for determining habitual predicate status)