Document Info

DocketNumber: 06-30470

Citation Numbers: 243 F. App'x 827

Judges: King, Higginbotham, Garza

Filed Date: 6/27/2007

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 27, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-30470
    Summary Calendar
    ALVIN B TRUESDALE
    Petitioner - Appellant
    v.
    FREDERICK MENIFEE, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, EDWARD F
    REILLY, JR
    Respondents - Appellees
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 1:05-CV-1308
    --------------------
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Alvin B. Truesdale, federal inmate # 09431-058, appeals the
    dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     application.   He is serving a
    life sentence imposed for convictions for drug-trafficking,
    firearms crimes, and maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise
    (CCE).    Truesdale challenged the defendants’ determination that
    he is ineligible for parole because his CCE offense continued
    past the November 1, 1987, effective date of the Sentencing
    Reform Act (SRA) that abolished parole.
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30470
    -2-
    Truesdale contends that the district court’s reasons for
    denying a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 59 were invalid, that the
    judgment was not “final” because all his arguments were not
    addressed and the defendants did not answer, that the district
    court failed to review the magistrate judge’s recommendation de
    novo, and that dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a
    claim was improper without an answer and hearing.     If we assume,
    as the district court held, that these claims are cognizable
    under § 2241, they fail because Truesdale alleges no plausible
    facts to challenge the district court’s critical determination
    that the CCE offense continued past the effective date of the
    SRA.
    Truesdale also contends that he received ineffective
    assistance of appellate counsel and that he is actually innocent
    due to insufficient or unreliable evidence of a CCE or a firearm
    offense.    These contentions directly challenge his conviction and
    are not cognizable under § 2241 because Truesdale cannot show
    that the remedy provided by 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     is “inadequate or
    ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    ; see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 
    243 F.3d 893
    , 904
    (5th Cir. 2001).    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    Truesdale has moved for recalculation of his sentence, for a
    telephone or video conference, to hold the appeal in abeyance,
    and for appointment of counsel.    These motions are denied.
    JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.