Ronald P. Green v. J. E. THOMAS, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD P. GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. E. THOMAS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-35013
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01009-JE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ronald P. Green appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35013 2
Green contends that he is actually innocent of being a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and therefore he should be allowed to proceed with his section
2241 petition under the “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This contention is
foreclosed. See Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he
purely legal argument that a petitioner was wrongly classified as a career offender
under the Sentencing Guidelines is not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence
under the escape hatch.”). The district court correctly dismissed his petition. See
id.
We construe Green’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --