Thomas v. Jeter

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10441
Summary Calendar
RONNIE THOMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COLE JETER, Warden,
Federal Medical Center Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-801
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie Thomas, federal prisoner # 09024-031, appeals the
district court’s decision to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.
Thomas argued in his § 2241 petition that the sentences imposed
following his guilty-plea convictions of possessing with the
intent to distribute marijuana and misprision of a felony were
invalid. Thomas’s numerous claims were based on Apprendi v. New
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10441
-2-
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296(2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Thomas’s § 2241 petition alleged errors that occurred at
sentencing. Such errors may not be asserted in a § 2241
petition. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27
(5th Cir. 2005). Thomas has not shown that his claims satisfy
the mandates of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27; Reyes-Requena v. United States,
243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Thomas’s contention that the
district court’s application of the savings clause violates the
Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution is
foreclosed. See Wesson v. United States Penitentiary Beaumont,
Tex., 305 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2002); Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d
at 901 n.19. Thomas’s argument that the AEDPA’s restrictions on
successive § 2255 motions violate the Suspension Clause lacks
merit. Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996) (holding
that successive-petition restrictions in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) do
not violate the Suspension Clause).
Thomas’s argument that the district court should have
considered his claims under its inherent powers because they do
not constitute a collateral attack on his sentence is
inadequately briefed and lacks merit. See United States v.
Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002). Thomas’s
suggestion that the errors in his case were structural and should
override all statutory restrictions has been rejected by this
No. 05-10441
-3-
court. See United States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 194 (2005).
The district court did not err in dismissing Thomas’s § 2241
petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Christopher v. Miles,
342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir. 2003). As the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Thomas’s substantive claims, we need not
consider them on appeal.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.