Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10773/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10773-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney W. Chandler
Appellee
Edward Sanchez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10773

Summary Calendar

EDWARD SANCHEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RODNEY W. CHANDLER,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-458

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Sanchez, federal prisoner # 35757-044, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Because Sanchez fails to challenge the district court’s determination that it 

lacks jurisdiction, we AFFIRM.

Sanchez attacks the validity of his sentence in his § 2241 petition. A 

petitioner can attack the validity of his conviction and sentence in a § 2241 

petition if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e).1

* 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. 1 Because Sanchez is proceeding under § 2241, he is not required to obtain a COA to pursue 

his appeal. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). A writ of habeas corpus filed 

under § 2241 and a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence filed under § 2255 are “distinct 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-10773 Document: 00513572351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2016
No. 15-10773

Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). The petitioner shoulders 

the burden of affirmatively showing that the remedy under § 2255 would be 

“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). To make this 

showing, the petitioner must establish that his claim (1) “is based on a 

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the 

petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “was 

foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised 

in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena, 243 

F.3d at 904.

Sanchez does not challenge the district court’s determination that he 

failed to show that his claim was based on a retroactively applicable Supreme 

Court decision. Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate any error in the 

district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition.2 See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.

mechanisms for seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Section 2255 is the primary mechanism for collaterally attacking a federal sentence, while § 2241 is 

the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in which a sentence is executed. Id. Because 

Sanchez’s § 2241 claims attacked the validity of his sentence, the district court did not err in 

determining that the claims would be properly brought in a § 2255 motion thus that § 2255(e)’s savings 

clause requirements must be met in order for Sanchez to bring his § 2241 petition. See id. 2 Sanchez argues for the first time on appeal that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) was unconstitutional because he was not given sufficient notice of the 

enhancement and because the district court failed to properly inquire about the prior conviction on 

which the enhancement was based. We normally do not consider § 2241 claims made for the first time 

on appeal. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011) (refusing to entertain § 2241 arguments 

when raised for the first time on appeal) (citing Page v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 651 F.2d 1083, 1087 (5th 

Cir. Unit A 1981)).

2

 

 Case: 15-10773 Document: 00513572351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2016