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

No. 11-10880 Summary Calendar

PAUL JEFFERSON BRADDOCK, Petitioner - Appellant

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Unit e d S t at e s Attorney General; KAREN EDENFIELD, Warden, Respondents - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-81

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paul Jefferson Braddock, federal prisoner # 31314-037, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , chall e n ges the district court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In it, Braddock challenges his three convictions in the Western District of Michigan for distribution of cocaine base. B r addock contends: the district court had jurisdiction over his petition because both he and his custodian, the warden of his prison facility, are within 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 June22 , 20 12 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: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2012No. 11-10880

the Northern District of Texas; 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention; and dismissal of his petition pursuant to § 2255 impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus. He also briefs the merits of his claim that his convic ti o n s were unconstitutional, asserting the Controlled Substances Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds the Gov e rnment’s power under the Commerce Clause. A district court’s dis m i s s al o f a § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo . Kinder v. Purdy , 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2241 petition and a § 2255 motion “are distinct mechanisms for seeking post-conviction relief”: § 2 2 55 is for collaterally attacking a federal sentence, and the motion must be filed in the sentencing court; § 2241 is for challenging the manner in which a federal sentence is executed, and the petition must be filed where the prisoner is incarcerated. Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “A [§] 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a [§] 2255 motion.” Id. at 452. Because the claims raised by Braddock in his § 2241 petition attacked the validity of his Michigan conviction and sentence, the district court did not err in d e termining the claims must be pursued in a § 2255 motion. Id. at 4 5 1

. An d , as Braddock was sentenced in Michigan, the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to construe his petition as a § 2255 motion. Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Because all the errors [the prisoner] alleges [occurred before or during sentencing], they must be a d dr essed in a § 2255 petition, and the only court with j u ri s di ction to hear that is the court that sentenced him”.). A prisoner can attack the validity of his conviction in a § 2241 petition only if he can meet the requirement s o f th e s avings clause found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Kinder , 222 F.3d at 212. For that clause to apply, the petitioner must show the remedy und e r § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States , 2 Case: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2012No. 11-10880

243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). The petitioner must establish that his claim: (1) “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court d e c i s i o n which establishes that the petitioner may h av e been convicted of a nonexistent offense”; and (2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in[, inter alia ,] the petitioner’s trial,[or] appeal

. . . .” Id. at 904. Braddock has failed to make the required showing. To the exte nt B r a ddock contends the dismissal of his § 2241 petition impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus, his c o nt ention lacks merit. Restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of § 2255 do not viola t e th e Suspension Clause. E.g. , Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tex., 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 200 2). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-10880 Document: 00511896128 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2012