Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40696/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40696-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Christopher Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40696

Conference Calendar

 

PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-214

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

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

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Christopher Davis, prisoner number 15273-057, was

convicted of one charge of possession of approximately 815 grams

of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to

330 months in prison. Davis filed a purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition to challenge this sentence. The district court

determined that Davis’s purported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition was

best classed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it. 

Davis now appeals that dismissal. Given the benefit of liberal

 Case: 03-40696 Document: 0051491567 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-40696

-2-

construction, his argument to this court may fairly be construed

as alleging that he is entitled to bring a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he

is actually innocent of his sentence.

In reviewing the denial of habeas relief, the district

court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues

of law are reviewed de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827,

830 (5th Cir. 2001). Davis has not shown that the district court

erred in construing his pleading as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion that should be dismissed. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-40696 Document: 0051491567 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2004