### 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* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4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: 10/30/2015No. 15

- 50294

2 While detained in the Western Distri ct 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 petitio n , 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 Reyes

Requena 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 mus t 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, a ppeal, 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 th at savings clause, and has not shown Reyes

- Requena was misapplied. Absent a change in law, a n 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., Unit ed States v. Treft , 447 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 200 6 ).
In his Rule 59(e) motion , Griffin agreed with the court’s factual findings

re garding 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 Exp l oration, Case: 15-50294 Document: 00513253728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2015No. 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. AFFIRME D. Case: 15-50294 Document: 00513253728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2015