Dubose v. Jeter

Fifth Circuit

Dubose v. Jeter

202 F. App'x 808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

Docket05-10703

StatusUnpublished

This text of 202 F. App'x 808 (Dubose v. Jeter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dubose v. Jeter, 202 F. App'x 808 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas M. Dubose, federal prisoner # 06261-043, was convicted in 2002 in the Southern District of Mississippi of manufacturing in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Dubose filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Dubose has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed as a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir.1987). Dubose’s contention that his claim under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), falls under § 2255’s savings clause lacks merit. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir.2005). His argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing was raised for the first time in his appeal to this court, and we will not consider it. See Leggett v. Fleming, 380 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.2004).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas M. Dubose, federal prisoner # 06261-043, was convicted in 2002 in the Southern District of Mississippi of manufacturing in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Dubose filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Dubose has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed as a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir.1987). Dubose’s contention that his claim under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), falls under § 2255’s savings clause lacks merit. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir.2005). His argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing was raised for the first time in his appeal to this court, and we will not consider it. See Leggett v. Fleming, 380 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.2004).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F. App'x 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-jeter-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack