653 Fed.Appx. 803 (5th Cir. 2016), 16-20130, Harris v. Quintana

Docket Nº:16-20130
Citation:653 Fed.Appx. 803
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:SHANNON KEITH HARRIS, Petitioner--Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Respondent--Appellee
Attorney:SHANNON KEITH HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, Pro se, Lexington, KY.
Judge Panel:Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:June 02, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 803

653 Fed.Appx. 803 (5th Cir. 2016)

SHANNON KEITH HARRIS, Petitioner--Appellant,

v.

WARDEN FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Respondent--Appellee

No. 16-20130

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

June 2, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. USDC No. 4:15-CV-3416.

SHANNON KEITH HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, Pro se, Lexington, KY.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM[*]

Shannon Harris, federal prisoner # 16186-179, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he claimed that he is actually innocent of his sentencing enhancement and that 28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause permitted him to bring this claim in a § 2241 petition. Harris is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005).

When Harris filed his claim for relief in the Southern District of Texas, he was incarcerated in Kentucky. The district court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider the § 2241 petition because Harris was required to bring it in the district where he was confined. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426; Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP