Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones
Summary of the case Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones
Conrado Acosta-Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 252-month sentence for a 2000 cocaine conspiracy conviction. He claimed he was wrongly classified as a career offender and argued his innocence under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court found his claim did not meet the savings clause requirements and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Issues of the case Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones
- Challenge to career offender classification
- Application of the savings clause in § 2255
Key Facts of the case Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones
- Acosta-Rodriguez was sentenced to 252 months for cocaine conspiracy.
- He claimed innocence of career offender status under § 2255.
Decision of the case Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones
Affirmed
Opinions
Case: 12-10931 Document: 00512248915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED May 21, 2013 No. 12-10931 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
CONRADO ACOSTA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Conrado Acosta,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
JASON JONES, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CV-143
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Conrado Acosta-Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 27173-198, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence of 252 months of imprisonment for his 2000 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Acosta-Rodriguez states that he is in custody for a “non-existent career offender conviction.” He asserts that he meets the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is actually
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-10931 Document: 00512248915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2013
No. 12-10931
innocent of being a career offender. He makes no attempt to argue how the remainder of his substantive claims satisfy the savings clause. Acosta-Rodriguez’s claim based on an alleged error in applying the career offender sentencing enhancement may not be asserted in this § 2241 petition because it fails to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause in § 2255. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court properly dismissed Acosta-Rodriguez’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED.
2