### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40042 Summary Calendar

ODIS LEE JACKSON , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. DANIELS, U.S. Prison Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CV

- 395

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner

- Appellant Odis Lee Jackson, federal prisoner # 15806

- 179,

w as convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base . He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40042 Document: 00513391933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2016No. 15

- 40042

2 Relying on , inter alia , Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), and Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), Jackson contends that the district court misapplied Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001 ), as the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits challe nges to erroneously applied statutory mandatory minimum sentences. The district court determined that Jackson had not met the criteria for proceeding under the savings clause which allows a federal prisoner to attack the legality of his conviction in a § 2241 petition if he can show that the remedies provided under § 2255 are “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e)

. We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A prisoner seeking to establish that his § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective must make a claim (1 ) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” that (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

. We are not persuaded by Jackson’s contention tha t the savings clause permits sentenc ing challenges

. See Garland v. Roy , 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010). As n either Descamps , 133 S. Ct. at 2278

- 95, nor Moncrieffe , 133 S. Ct. at 1680

- 94, ha s any effect on whether Jackson was convicted of nonexistent federal drug offenses, these decisions do not demonstrate that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See Garland , 615 F.3d at 394. Jackson also relies

on United States v. Sanchez

- Espinal , 762 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2014), but that is not a Supreme Court decision , so it cannot satisfy the first prong of the Reyes

Requena test. See Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. Finally, even though Case: 15-40042 Document: 00513391933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2016No. 15

- 40042

3 Jackson advanced a claim based on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct . 2151 (2013) in the district court , he has not briefed a contention based on Alleyne on appeal and has therefore abandoned this claim. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446

- 47 (5th Cir. 2010) ; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40042 Document: 00513391933 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2016