Pierre v. United States , 222 F. App'x 415 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 12, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10677
Summary Calendar
JOSE PIERRE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DAVID JUSTICE, Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution, Big Spring
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 5:06-cv-00036
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Pierre, federal prisoner #00418-265, was convicted in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 and sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment and four
years’ supervised release. His conviction and sentence were
affirmed on appeal on August 19, 1998. In August 2005, Pierre
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10677
-2-
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Southern District of Florida, which was
dismissed as time-barred.
Pierre is incarcerated in the Big Spring Correctional Facility
in the Northern District of Texas. In February 2006, Pierre filed
a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He appeals the
district court’s dismissal of the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
The district court, as the place of Pierre’s incarceration,
can exercise jurisdiction only over a properly filed § 2241
petition that challenges the manner in which a sentence is
executed. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001). This court has held that “a section 2241 petition
that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must
either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Pack
v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). This court has also
held, however, that a petitioner can attack the validity of his
conviction in a § 2241 petition, but only if he can meet the
requirements of the “savings clause” of § 2255. Reyes-Requena, 243
F.3d at 878. To meet the requirements of the “savings clause,” the
petitioner must show that his remedy under § 2255 would be
“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901. Pierre
has failed to do so.
No. 06-10677
-3-
The district court properly construed Pierre’s § 2241 petition
as a § 2255 petition because it challenges his sentence and
conviction and not the manner in which his sentence was executed.
Consequently, the district court was without jurisdiction to
entertain the claims unless Pierre could demonstrate that they fell
within the “savings clause” of § 2255, which he failed to do.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Pierre’s
§ 2241 petition for want of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.