IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50294

Summary Calendar

CAMERON SCOTT GRIFFIN,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cameron Scott Griffin, federal prisoner # 13128-023, was convicted in 

2008 in district court in Idaho of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine, with 

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and four 

counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1). His 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied in 2013.

 

* 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

October 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50294 Document: 00513253728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2015
No. 15-50294

2

While detained in the Western District of Texas in 2015, Griffin filed a 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition containing numerous claims, which he conceded were 

intended to collaterally challenge his underlying convictions. Proceeding pro 

se, Griffin challenges the denial and dismissal of that petition, as well as denial 

of his motion to reconsider, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e).

The denial of a § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo. E.g., Kinder v. Purdy, 

222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). Griffin contends our decision in ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001), was both wrongly 

decided and is inapplicable here. In Reyes-Requena, our court held that, in 

order to pursue a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(e), the petitioner must state a claim: based on a retroactively applicable 

Supreme Court decision establishing the petitioner may have been convicted 

of a nonexistent offense; and was foreclosed by circuit law when the claim 

should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. 

Id. at 904.

Despite Griffin’s assertion to the contrary, Reyes-Requena does not state

prisoners may only use § 2255’s savings clause to pursue actual-innocence

claims. Griffin does not contend any of his claims may proceed under that

savings clause, and has not shown Reyes-Requena was misapplied. Absent a 

change in law, an en-banc decision by this court, or an intervening Supreme 

Court decision overruling Reyes-Requena, we are bound by a prior panel’s 

decision. E.g., United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2006).

In his Rule 59(e) motion, Griffin agreed with the court’s factual findings 

regarding his claims, and asserted only that it erred in applying Reyes-Requena

to dismiss his § 2241 petition. The motion sought review of a purely legal issue; 

accordingly, our review is de novo. E.g., Potts v. Chesapeake Exploration,

 Case: 15-50294 Document: 00513253728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2015
No. 15-50294

3

L.L.C., 760 F.3d 470, 473 (5th Cir. 2014). For the reasons stated above, the 

court did not err in denying Griffin’s motion. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50294 Document: 00513253728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2015