United States v. Keith Ford
682 F. App'x 295
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Keith Allen Ford, a federal prisoner, was sentenced in 1992 to 360 months for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a pro se pleading in district court titled a “28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition For Review Of Unlawful Sentence Pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(2).”
- The district court denied Ford’s pleading as lacking merit; Ford timely appealed and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (denied as moot on appeal).
- The Government moved for summary affirmance (or for an extension to file a brief); the court considered jurisdictional and procedural characterizations of Ford’s filing.
- The panel assessed whether Ford’s filing should be treated as § 2241, a § 2255 motion, a § 3582 or § 3742 motion, or other common-law remedies (coram nobis or audita querela).
- The court concluded Ford’s pleading was an unauthorized motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction and affirmed the denial on that alternative ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper characterization: § 2241 vs § 2255 | Ford styled pleading as § 2241 challenging sentence legality | Govt/district court: label irrelevant; substance controls; needed statutory authority | Court: Pleading was an unauthorized motion; not a proper § 2241 petition |
| Availability of successive § 2255 relief | Ford sought relief on sentence legality via collateral attack | Govt: Ford had prior § 2255; no authorization for a successive § 2255 | Court: § 2255 unavailable because Ford had previously filed one and no authorization issued |
| Savings clause (§ 2255(e)) applicability to bring § 2241 | Ford implied § 2241 relief could be entertained via savings clause | Govt: Savings clause inapplicable because claims not based on new retroactive Supreme Court rule or previously foreclosed circuit law | Court: Savings-clause § 2241 relief not available to Ford |
| Alternative remedies (§ 3582, § 3742, coram nobis, audita querela) | Ford invoked § 3742/other means to challenge sentence | Govt: § 3582 and § 3742 inapplicable; coram nobis/audita querela not available | Court: None of these remedies applied; motion unauthorized and district court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1983) (substance of pro se pleading, not label, controls characterization)
- Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1994) (federal courts lack power without statutory jurisdiction)
- Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing § 2241 and § 2255 post-conviction mechanisms)
- Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1999) (requirement of circuit authorization for successive § 2255)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (standards for invoking savings clause to pursue § 2241 relief)
- United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 1994) (district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain unauthorized motions challenging sentence)
- United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2010) (limitations on coram nobis/audita querela relief)
- Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 1996) (unavailable post-conviction remedies outside statutory schemes)