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

No. 18

- 31271 Summary Calendar

DARREN G. LEWIS , Petitioner

- Appellant

v.
CHRIS MCCONNELL , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:18

- CV

- 1003

Before CLEMENT, EL ROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darren G. Lewis, federal prisoner # 47027

- 177, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the Western District of Louisiana, where he is currently incarcerated. Relying on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya , 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), Lewis argu ed that the definition of “crime of violence” in the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague and that , therefore , his 84

- month consecutive

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 November 6, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2019No. 18

- 31271

2 sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence could not stand. T he district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Lewis contends that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition

. He a s s erts that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate because it cannot be used to bring a claim regarding the reach or meaning of a criminal statute; therefore, he a rgues , his claim is cognizable in a § 2241 petition because he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Lewis devotes much of his brief to an attack on the consti tutionality of § 924(c)(3)(B). Our review is de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000)

. A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for seeking post

- conviction relief.” Id. Section 2255 is the primary mechanism for collaterally attacking a federal sentence, and a § 2255 motion must be filed with the sentencing court. Id

. “A petition filed under § 2241 that attacks errors that occurred at trial or sentencing is properly construed as a § 2255 motion.” Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). A prisoner challenging the validity of his conviction ordina rily must do so under § 2255 and may proceed under § 2241 only if he shows that his § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective. Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877

- 78 (5th Cir. 2000). Although the Supreme Court has held that § 924(c)(3)(B) is
unconst itutionally vague, see United States v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), and we have determined that Davis applies retroactively on collateral review of an initial § 2255 motion , see United States v. Reece , 938 F.3d 630 , Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2019No. 18

- 31271

3 634

- 35 (5th Cir. 2019) , 1 Lewis has failed to show that his claim meets the requirements of the savings clause. This is so because the predicate for his § 924(c) conviction, a Hobbs Act robbery offense, is categorically a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v.
Bowens , 907 F.3d 347, 353

- 54 & n n .10

- 11 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied , 139 S. Ct. 1299 (2019); United St ates v. Buck , 847 F.3d 267, 274

- 75 (5th Cir. 2017). In view of the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.

1 Lewis has brought Davis and Reece to our attention by filing letters pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j). Case: 18-31271 Document: 00515188609 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2019