Santiago v. Streeval

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s section 2241 petition that challenged his two unlawful possession of firearm by felon convictions under Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. 2091, where defendant claimed that record did not show that he knew at time of his possession of firearm that he was felon. Record showed that defendant had previously filed unsuccessful section 2255 habeas petition, and savings clause in section 2255(e) that would allow defendant to proceed on section 2241 petition required showing that error was grave enough to be deemed miscarriage of justice. In that regard, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant failed to show that any alleged error was grave enough to constitute miscarriage of justice through showing of actual innocence, where: (1) at time of defendant’s possession of firearm, defendant had previously been convicted of criminal trespass charge that carried 23-month term of incarceration, although defendant had only served five months of said incarceration and had been paroled for balance of sentence; and (2) while defendant asserted that he was unaware that his criminal trespass conviction was punishable by more than one year in prison, defendant failed to present evidence that would require any reasonable juror to find existence of reasonable doubt with respect to defendant’s unlawful possession of firearm charges. Ct. also observed that instant two unlawful possession of firearm charges were based on defendant’s conduct in carrying out three armed robberies and held that no reasonable juror would have acquitted defendant of unlawful possession of firearm by felon charges, where defendant essentially argued that he had non-criminal mindset regarding his possession of firearm while he was planning and carrying out three armed robberies. (Dissent filed.)