Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11103/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11103-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11103

Conference Calendar

 

DON BENNY ANDERSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

L.E. FLEMING, Warden Federal Medical Center-Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1144-A

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Benny Anderson, Federal prisoner # 060260-026, has

appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging

a conviction, in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, for conspiracy, interstate transportation

to commit arson, and damaging a building with an explosive

device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952, and 844(i). 

Anderson contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 03-11103 Document: 005120702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-11103

-2-

because the Government failed to establish that his offense

resulted in a “commercial injury” and so affected interstate

commerce. Because the Government did not make such a showing, he

contends, the Government lacked “standing” to prosecute him. 

Anderson contends that he should be permitted to pursue this

claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding under the Savings Clause

of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because this claim is based upon a novel

legal theory. Anderson does not contend that the claim he wishes

to assert is based upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court

decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a

nonexistent offense. Nor has he shown that his claim was

foreclosed previously by circuit precedent. Accordingly, he has

not carried his burden of showing that his claim may be asserted

under the Savings Clause. See Reyes-Requena v. United States,

243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The appeal is dismissed as

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 03-11103 Document: 005120702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004