Teafatiller v. Dobre

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41421
Summary Calendar
CHARLES DAVID TEAFATILLER,
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-505
--------------------
January 29, 2003
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles David Teafatiller, a federal prisoner (# 02520-063),
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241habeas corpus petition. In 1997, Teafatiller was convicted of,
inter alia, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”),
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848, and was sentenced to a total of
30 years in prison. Teafatiller argues that the district court
erred in dismissing his petition as improperly filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 and in concluding that he had not shown that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41421
-2-
28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided an “inadequate” and “ineffective”
postconviction remedy.
The district court concluded that Teafatiller’s claims were
not properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2255
provides the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal
conviction and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877
(5th Cir. 2000). A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is not a
“substitute” for a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a “[§] 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, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
Although Teafatiller could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if
he demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was “inadequate or
ineffective” under the latter statute’s “savings clause,”
Robinson has failed to make such a showing. See Reyes-Requena
v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) (to proceed
under “savings clause,” petitioner must show that (1) his claims
are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision
which establishes that he may have been convicted of a
nonexistent offense, and (2) his claims were foreclosed by
circuit law at the time when the claims should have been raised
in his trial, appeal, or first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); Jeffers
v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 829-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1001 (2001). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Teafatiller’s request for an en banc hearing is DENIED.
See FED. R. APP. P. 35(a).