IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and one count of

terrorist financing. Ranjha sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

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. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009). The district court ruled

Ranjha could not proceed under § 2241 because his claims did not satisfy the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 7, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

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

requirements of the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and dismissed his

§ 2241 petition.

Section 2255 relief is the remedy for “errors that occurred at or prior to

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, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Ranjha

challenges 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 § 2255 remedy would be

“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner’s] detention,” 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 applicable

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 requisite 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, does not render relief under § 2255 “inadequate or

ineffective.” See Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878. Therefore, Ranjha has not shown

that he is entitled to proceed under § 2255's savings 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