Fountain v. Jeter

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 21, 2006·No. 05-10727·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-10727 Conference Calendar

FRANK FOUNTAIN, JR.,

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-909 --------------------

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Fountain, Jr., federal prisoner # 97040-079, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas

petition, which followed his convictions and sentences for wire

fraud, mail fraud, and concealing assets. Fountain challenged

the constitutionality of his convictions and sentences in light

of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-10727 -2-

The errors asserted by Fountain may not be raised in a

§ 2241 petition unless they arise under the savings clause of 28

U.S.C. § 2255. We have held that claims based on Booker and

Blakely do not fall under the savings clause of § 2255. See

Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

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

Fountain v. Jeter, (5th Cir. 2006).

Fountain v. Jeter (Fountain v. Jeter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Padilla v. United States
416 F.3d 424 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)