Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50172/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50172

Summary Calendar 

JOHN LEE COCKERHAM, JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant 

v. 

J. S. WILLIS, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:15-CV-382

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Lee Cockerham, Jr., federal prisoner # 97305-180, appeals the 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed to challenge his 

convictions of conspiring to commit an offense against or defraud the United 

States or an agency thereof, bribery, and conspiring to commit money 

laundering. Where, as here, a district court has dismissed a § 2241 petition on 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50172 Document: 00513801455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 16-50172

2 

the pleadings, we review the dismissal de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 

212 (5th Cir. 2000).

Cockerham claims that, due to a defect in his indictment, the district 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus his convictions are invalid. 

He asserts that he should be allowed to raise the purported jurisdictional 

defect in a § 2241 petition. 

Because Cockerham’s § 2241 petition challenges alleged errors that 

occurred prior to sentencing, it is properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

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

Pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody 

resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the 

petitioner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or 

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 

827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see § 2255(e). Cockerham, however, has not 

established that his claim of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, predicated 

on allegations of a defective indictment, either is based upon a retroactive 

Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent 

offense or was foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, appeal, or first 

§ 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.

2001). He has therefore failed to show reversible error on the part of the 

district court. See id.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-50172 Document: 00513801455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016