Garland v. Roy

Pro se petitioner Gene Irving Garland appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In that petition he argues that he is entitled to release in light of United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (2008), which held that the money-laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), term "proceeds" was ambiguous and as a result, in certain circumstances, must be read to mean "profits." Santos clearly applies retroactively to Garlands convictions at issue in this case. United States v. McPhail, 112 F.3d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1997). Garland contends that, under Santos, he was wrongfully convicted of multiple nonexistent money laundering offenses because the indictment and the jury instructions did not require the Government to prove that he used "profits" to pay "returns" to investors in his illegal pyramid scheme. He also argues that his petition satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2255s "savings clause" and thus can be brought under § 2241. We agree that Garlands petition states a claim falling within § 2255s "savings clause" and thus he may proceed under § 2241. Therefore, we REVERSE the dismissal and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.