Givens v. United States, 4:18-cv-00993

Petitioner Gregory Latrell Givens is serving a 262-month federal sentence after a jury convicted him of being a felon in possession of ammunition and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine following trial in the Northern District of Iowa.
Givens’ convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; the Supreme Court denied certiorari and a § 2255 motion was previously denied.
In this § 2241 petition filed at USP–Lewisburg, Givens asserts factual innocence of the cocaine offense, arguing (1) the arrest warrant and jury instructions failed to require proof of at least 28 grams of cocaine base and (2) evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
He also cites Burrage v. United States in support of his claim (arguing causal/quantity issues), and reiterates previously litigated suppression arguments.
The government (and the court) treat the petition as a collateral attack on conviction rather than on execution of sentence and analyze whether § 2241 is available under the Dorsainvil safety-valve.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of § 2241 to challenge conviction	Givens contends § 2241 is proper because he is detained at USP–Lewisburg and claims actual innocence (Burrage-based) and Fourth Amendment defects	The proper vehicle is § 2255; § 2241 is available only if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective under Dorsainvil	Dismissed: Givens may not use § 2241 because he had prior § 2255 and no showing that § 2255 is inadequate under the narrow Dorsainvil exception
Applicability/retroactivity of Burrage	Burrage supports his claim that causal/quantity issues undermine the conviction	Burrage has not been made retroactive on collateral review and does not create a Dorsainvil basis for § 2241 relief	Burrage is not retroactive for collateral relief; reliance on it does not permit § 2241 jurisdiction
Re-litigation of Fourth Amendment suppression claims	Evidence was illegally seized and should invalidate conviction	Suppression and Fourth Amendment claims were raised and decided at pretrial and on direct appeal	Court refuses to reopen those claims via § 2241 because they were adjudicated on the merits previously
Remedy and dismissal posture	Requests habeas relief under § 2241	Court treats petition as improper collateral attack and will dismiss without prejudice to pursue proper § 2255 avenues	Petition dismissed without prejudice; Givens may seek authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 in the appropriate court of appeals

Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (held a death-result enhancement requires the Government to prove the drug was a but-for cause of death)
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 may be used only if § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective; safety-valve is narrow)
Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (clarifies that inadequacy of § 2255, not inability to use it, is determinative)
Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes challenges to conviction from challenges to execution of sentence under § 2241)
United States v. Givens, 763 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate decision affirming Givens’ conviction and sentence)