eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-06

Mejia v. Dobre ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41273
Conference Calendar
ELIAS RAYAS MEJIA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JONATHAN DOBRE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-298
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elias Rayas Mejia, federal prisoner # 03737-017, challenges
the district court’s dismissal of his
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition.
Because Mejia was alleging errors that occurred at his trial or
sentencing, he should have presented the claims in a
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion.     See Tolliver v. Dobre,
    211 F.3d 876
    , 877 (5th
Cir. 2000).    As Mejia did not allege that he may have been
convicted of a nonexistent offense, he failed to show that he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41273
-2-
could present his claims in a
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition through
the “savings clause” of
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .     See Reyes-Requena v.
United States,
    243 F.3d 893
    , 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001).
Mejia asserts that dismissing his petition because he did
not fall under the “savings clause” constitutes a violation of
the Suspension Clause.   The “savings clause” of
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    does not violate the Suspension Clause.
    Id.
     at 901 n.19.
Mejia also argues for the first time on appeal that he has
shown that he is actually innocent of the sentencing enhancement
for being a leader or organizer pursuant to Apprendi v. New
Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).    This court generally will not
consider new arguments on appeal.    See United States v. Samuels,
    59 F.3d 526
    , 529-30 (5th Cir. 1995)(
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     case).
Regardless, Apprendi does not apply to such claims.     See United
States v. Doggett,
    230 F.3d 160
    , 166 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied,
    531 U.S. 1177
     (2001).    Mejia has failed to show that the
district court erred in dismissing his
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition.
Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.