Stanley Robinson v. United States, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2030

Petitioner Stanley Robinson, a federal prisoner, sought to proceed IFP on appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 1998 convictions and sentences for drug and firearm offenses.
Robinson argued he could proceed under the § 2255 savings clause because § 2255 was allegedly inadequate to test his sentence legality.
He relied on Apprendi, Blakely, Alleyne, and Persaud, asserting Persaud announced a change in the law that made his sentencing claims cognizable under § 2241.
The district court concluded his § 2241 petition was not brought in good faith and dismissed it; Robinson sought IFP to appeal that dismissal.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the appeal presented nonfrivolous legal issues and whether Robinson met the burden to show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robinson may use § 2241 via the § 2255 savings clause to attack his sentence	Robinson contends § 2255 is inadequate because Persaud changed the law, making his Apprendi/Blakely/Alleyne claims retroactively applicable	The government (and court) treated Robinson as failing to show § 2255 was inadequate; Persaud did not announce a substantive change entitling him to relief under the savings clause	Denied — Robinson failed to show § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective; Persaud is not a substantive decision supporting § 2241 relief
Whether the appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes	Robinson argued the appeal raises arguable legal points on the merits	Court applied the standard that the appeal must not be frivolous and must present legal points arguable on their merits	Denied — appeal deemed frivolous; IFP on appeal denied

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for appeals taken in good faith for IFP)
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (appeal good-faith inquiry limited to whether legal points are arguable on their merits)
Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2000) (§ 2255 is primary means to attack federal sentence; § 2241 challenges execution)
Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (savings clause allows § 2241 where § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective)
Wesson v. United States Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2002) (burden on petitioner to show § 2255 remedy inadequate)
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (requirements for savings-clause eligibility: retroactive Supreme Court decision establishing nonexistent offense and that claim was foreclosed by circuit law when it should have been raised)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rule that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved to jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi principle applied to state sentencing guidelines)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element for jury to find)
Persaud v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014) (per curiam dispositions and their effect; not a substantive decision for savings-clause purposes)