Kenemore v. Roy, 111810 FED5, 08-41249

Docket Nº:08-41249
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:LAWRENCE D. KENEMORE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. KEITH ROY, Warden at FCI Texarkana, Respondent-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 18, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LAWRENCE D. KENEMORE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

KEITH ROY, Warden at FCI Texarkana, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-41249

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

November 18, 2010

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CV-104

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM[*]

Lawrence Kenemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 26175-077, was convicted by a jury of "conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to embezzle funds from employee benefit plans, conspiracy to launder money, mail fraud, embezzlement from employee benefit plans, money laundering, and making a false statement to the United States Department of Labor." See United States v. Kenemore, No. 96-11029, 1997 WL 574971, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 1997) (unpublished). Kene-more filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his money-laundering conviction should be invalidated in light of United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008). The district court dismissed the petition because Kenemore did not meet the requirements for proceeding under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as set forth in Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). For the denial of habeas corpus relief, the district court's findings of facts are reviewed for clear error, issues of law de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).

The district court limited the application of Santos to cases of illegal gam­bling and did not have the benefit of Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010), when it reached that conclusion. Under Garland, id. at 402-04, the dis­trict court's narrow interpretation of Santos, limiting it to illegal gambling, is not correct. Accordingly, the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP