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,

was 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 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

FILED

February 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40042 Document: 00513391933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
No. 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 challenges 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 that the savings clause 

permits sentencing challenges. See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 

2010). As neither Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2278-95, nor Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. 

at 1680-94, has 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 ReyesRequena test. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. Finally, even though 

 Case: 15-40042 Document: 00513391933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2016
No. 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