# Ezell Gilbert v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2011 · 640 F.3d 1293

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817982

## Case

- **Full name:** Ezell GILBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 19, 2011
- **Citations:** 640 F.3d 1293; 79 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 986; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10157; 2011 WL 1885674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dubina
- **Judges:** Dubina, Tjoflat, Edmondson, Carnes, Barkett, Hull, Marcus, Pryor, Martin, Hill, Black
- **Nature of suit:** ENB
- **Cited by:** 234 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (2017).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817982

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a “statutory maximum sentence” is a “punishment ceiling beyond which no [convicted] defendant . . . may be sentenced” and noting that, where a statute and mandatory guideline sentence are inconsistent, “the guideline[] 68 Case: 12-11212 Date Filed: 12/24/2013 P…
- concluding that the savings clause did not authorize a federal prisoner to bring in a § 2441 petition a claim, which would otherwise be barred by the rule respecting second or successive § 2255 motions, that the Sentencing Guidelines were misapplied in a way that resulted in a…
- explaining that a “statutory maximum sentence” is a “punishment ceiling beyond which no [convicted] defendant ... may be sentenced” and noting that, where a statute and mandatory guideline sentence are inconsistent, “the guideline[ ] [sentence must] ... bend to statutorily pre…
- holding that the rule espoused in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), which decided that state prisoners could not circumvent the bar on successive habeas petitions by filing Rule 60(b) motions, applies equally to federal prisoners
- holding that a federal prisoner cannot “use a habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence ... at least where the sentence the prisoner is attacking does not exceed the statutory maximum.”

## Opinion text

DUBINA, Chief Judge,
concurring specially:
Even though I initially agreed with the panel opinion, I now concur fully in the well-reasoned majority opinion and write separately to emphasize that after studying the issue further and having the benefit of en banc oral argument and briefing, I am persuaded that Gilbert’s sentencing guidelines claim does not fall within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and that the policy principles regarding finality of judgment weigh most heavily in denying Gilbert the relief he seeks. As the majority opinion states, “one of the principal functions of AEDPA was to ensure a greater degree of finality for convictions.” Johnson v. United States, 340 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir.2003). In enacting AEDPA, Congress placed restrictions on the filing of second or successive petitions to ensure the finality of state and federal court judgments. Because the principle of finality of judgment is paramount to our criminal justice system, Gilbert’s attempt to circumvent the second or successive motions bar that Congress placed in § 2255(h) cannot succeed. Accordingly, I join the majority in affirming the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9817982. Public record. Not legal advice.