Anthony v. Joslin , 205 F. App'x 205 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 24, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-11429
    Conference Calendar
    MARK ANTHONY,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    DAN JOSLIN,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:05-CV-1790
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Mark Anthony, federal prisoner # 05991-062, appeals the
    dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
    petition, construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, for lack of
    subject matter jurisdiction.   Anthony challenged his conviction
    and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of
    cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).
    Because Anthony’s claims relate to errors that allegedly
    occurred at or prior to sentencing, his claims could not be
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 05-11429
    -2-
    asserted in a § 2241 petition.     See Reyes-Requena v. United
    States, 
    243 F.3d 893
    , 900 (5th Cir. 2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 
    211 F.3d 876
    , 877 (5th Cir. 2000).     Moreover, Anthony has not shown
    that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the “savings
    clause” of § 2255.     See 
    Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901
    , 904.
    Anthony’s argument that the restrictions on obtaining relief
    pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of § 2255 constitute a
    violation of the Suspension Clause is without merit.     See 
    id. at 901
    n.19.
    As Anthony does not address the district court’s finding
    that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion
    under § 2255, any challenge to that finding has been abandoned.
    See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25
    (5th Cir. 1993).     The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-11429

Citation Numbers: 205 F. App'x 205

Judges: DeMOSS, Jolly, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 10/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023