Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0673-01.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

Jon Raymond CARRIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-40349
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2007.
    Jon Raymond Carrigan, Austin, TX, pro se.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jon Raymond Carrigan, federal prisoner #26552-177, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his conviction for conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Carrigan does not dispute that the claims raised in the instant § 2241 petition were raised in his prior § 2241 petition, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to satisfy the criteria of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. He argues that he should be allowed to proceed under the savings clause on the basis of the discovery of new information pertaining to his claims, specifically, the addendum to the presentence report.

In order to satisfy the criteria of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause, Carrigan must show that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when it 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). Carrigan has not made the requisite showing. See id. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Carrigan’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.

Carrigan is CAUTIONED that the filing of repetitious or frivolous pleadings will result in the imposition of a sanction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.