### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40133 Summary Calendar

SAIFULLAH ANJUM RANJHA, also known as Salifullah Anjum Ranjha, Petitioner-Appellant

v. MICHAEL D. CARVAJAL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CV-168

Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Saifullah Anjum Ranjha, federal prisoner # 43091-037, pleaded guilty to

one count of co n s p ir a c y to launder monetary instruments and one count of terrorist financing. Ranjha sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 41, maintaining he was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Regalado Cuellar v. United States , 553 U.S. 550 (2008), and Flores-Figueroa v. U

nited States , 556 U.S. 646 (2009). The district court ruled Ranjha could not proce e d u n d e r § 2241 because his claims did not satisfy the U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 7, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40133 Document: 00512046060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2012No. 12-40133

requirements of the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and dismissed his § 2241 petition. S e ction 2255 relief is the remedy for “errors that occurred at or pri o r t o sentencing.” Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). A § 2241 petition raising errors “that occurr[ed] at trial or sentencing is properly construed [as arising] under § 2255.” Tolliver v. Dobre , 2 1 1 F

. 3 d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Ranjha ch all e n g e s the legality of his conviction and sentence, his claims must be presented under § 2255. Cox , 911 F.2d at 1113. If a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2 2 5 5 r e medy would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner’s ] d e t e nti on,” he may be permitted to pursue a claim pursuant to § 2241 under § 2255’s “savings clause.” Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). The savings clause applies to any claim “that is based on a retroactively applicabl e Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and “that 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.” Id. at 904. Ranjha has not made the requ isite showing because his claims based on Regalado Cuellar and Flores could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion filed on May 22, 2009. Further, his claim that he cannot obtain relief through § 2255 because his motions to supplement and amend his initial § 2255 motion

were denied as untimely, do e s not render relief under § 2255 “inadequate or ineff e c tiv e.” See Tolliver , 211 F.3d at 878. Therefore, Ranjha has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2255's savi n g s clause. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing his § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40133 Document: 00512046060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2012