Case ID: f-appx_77/html/0721-01.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

Coy Lynn OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Suzanne HASTINGS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-40450.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 7, 2003.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner-Appellant Coy Owens, federal prisoner # 04702-078, appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Owens is currently serving a 210-month sentence on his convictions for multiple counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aiding and abetting, and use of fire to commit a felony. Owens argues that the district court erred in determining that his defective indictment claim did not meet the criteria for bringing a claim pursuant to the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Owens’s reliance on Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000), and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), does not satisfy the requirements for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Owens’s arguments that the district court should have transferred his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to us for consideration as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that the “savings clause” constitutes a Suspension of the Writ, also fail. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901 n. 19; Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2000).

Owens has not briefed his arguments related to violations of Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954), and the fair warning doctrine. Accordingly, these arguments are abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.