[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14099
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00488-KOB-SGC
FREDDIE WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 10, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Wilson, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for lack of jurisdiction.
Wilson argues that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective and that his
sentence is unlawful. We affirm.
A federal prisoner may collaterally attack his sentence by filing a motion to
vacate it, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). But the saving clause of section 2255(e) permits a
federal prisoner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus only when “the
remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). We review de novo whether a federal prisoner may file a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the saving clause of section 2255(e).
McCarthan v. Dir. Of Goodwill Induc.-Suncoast,
851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir.
2017) (en banc).
The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s petition, which alleged
grounds for relief that he could have raised—and, in fact, did raise—in a motion to
vacate his sentence under section 2255(a). That remedy was neither inadequate nor
ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. And the bar of second or successive
motions, 28 U.S.C. § 2225(h), does not make a motion to vacate inadequate or
ineffective under the saving clause of section 2255(e).
McCarthan, 851 F.3d at
1092.
AFFIRMED.
2
