Case ID: f-appx_252/html/0583-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry Lewis DEDRICK, Petitioner-Appellant v. T. C. OUTLAW, Warden; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 06-41184
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2007.
    
      Jerry Lewis Dedrick, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lewis Dedrick, federal prisoner # 27140180, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his guilty plea conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting the possession of more than 50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The district court denied Dedrick’s § 2241 petition because he had not shown that his claims satisfied the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. Dedrick argues that the indictment was invalid because it was not notarized or stamped with the “Government Seal of Certification of Notarization” and was not signed by the grand jury foreperson. He argues that he was never in possession of any drugs and that the Government lied in the indictment and forged the indictment. He argues that the district court erred in not addressing the merits of his claims.

In order to satisfy the criteria of § 2255’s savings clause, Dedrick must show that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claims were foreclosed by circuit law at the time when they should have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in an initial § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Dedrick- has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Dedrick’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED. Dedrick’s “Motion to Grant Amended State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted In Appellant’s Brief’ is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.