Enrique Acosta v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium, 686 F. App'x 836

Enrique Acosta was convicted in 1993 of federal drug offenses, possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), and use of a firearm silencer in relation to drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)).
Because of prior state convictions, Acosta was treated as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and received a lengthy aggregated sentence (including a consecutive § 924(c) term).
Acosta’s 2002 § 2255 motion was denied. In 2011 he filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming (inter alia) that later caselaw required a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that his firearm had a silencer/muffler before imposing the § 924(c)(1) sentence, and that his prior convictions could not support ACCA enhancement.
The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Acosta appealed only the silencer-element/jury-trial issue in this court.
The Eleventh Circuit relied on its en banc holding that a change in caselaw does not render a § 2255 motion inadequate or ineffective under the § 2255(e) saving clause, so Acosta could not use § 2241 to raise the claim.
The court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; Acosta was required to raise the claim in a § 2255 motion (including seeking leave for a second or successive petition where appropriate).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 2255 saving clause permits Acosta to pursue in § 2241 a claim based on intervening caselaw that a jury must find the silencer element of § 924(c)(1) beyond a reasonable doubt	Acosta: Intervening caselaw changed the law such that a § 2255 motion was inadequate/ineffective, so § 2241 jurisdiction is proper	Government: A change in caselaw does not make § 2255 inadequate; Acosta must raise the claim via § 2255 (including second-or-successive procedures)	The court held § 2255’s saving clause does not allow Acosta to use § 2241 for this claim; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed

The opinion principally relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc holding on the § 2255 saving clause. The opinion did not cite any authority with an official reporter citation to list here.