Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10939 Su m m ar yC al endar J A M E S B . S L A U G H T E R , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , R espon den t - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V - 29 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Jam es B . Slaugh t er, federalpri soner # 326 75-077, w as con vi ct ed by a j u ry of co ns pi r ac y t o di s t r ibut e a nd p o s s e s s w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne b as e, di s t r ibut i o n a nd p o s s e ssi o n o f c o c ai ne b as e w i t hi n 1 , 00 0 fe e to f apl ay gr o und, an d tw o coun t s of

di st ribu t i on of

coc ai n e b a se. Sl au gh t er w as sentenced r es pec t ively to c onc urr entt er m s of i m pri so nm entf

orl i fe, 480 m ont hs, 480 m on t h s, an d 24 0 m on t h s. Sl au gh t er has been un successf u lin seek i n g rel i ef und er28 U . S. C . § 2255. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 25, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10939 Document: 00511121436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010N o. 09- 10939

2 S l au gh t er f

i l ed a p et i t i on f

or a w ri t of

au di t a qu erel a i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ch a ll e n g in gth e leg a li tyof h is se n te n ce inli g h t of Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S . 22 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt f ou n dtha t rel i ef pu rsu a n t t o a w ri t of au d i ta que r e l a w as no ta va i l ab l e b e c aus e r e dr e s s w as a va i l ab l e und e r§ 2 25 5. The di st ri ctcourtden i ed an d d i sm i ssed Slaugh t er’ s pet i t i on on that basi s. S la u g h te rco n te n d s in th is a p p e a l t h a t h e s h o u ldb e p e r m itt e dto a s s e r t h is B o okercl ai m vi a a peti t i on f or a w ri tof

au di t a qu erel a becau se B ookerwas dec i ded af

t erhe w as s ent enc ed and i s notret r oac t ively appl i c abl e i n t he § 2255 c o n te x t. A lth o u g h th e w r it o f a u d ita q u e r e la “p e r m its a d e fe n d a n t t o o b ta in r e l i e f a ga i ns ta j udg m e ntb e c aus e o f s o m e l e ga lde fe ns e a ri si ng af t e rt he j u d gm en t, ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Banda , 1 F . 3d 354 , 355 ( 5th C ir . 199 3) , a pri soner m a y n ot see k a w ri t of au d i ta q u ere l a i f h e “m a y see k re d ress u n d er § 2 2 5 5 . ” I d. ; seealso Massey v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 581 F . 3d 172 , 173 - 74 ( 3rd C i r. 200 9) . T h e fact t hata m ov antc annotm ee tt he r equi r em ent s f orbr i ngi ng a s ucc es sive § 2 255 m o tio n d o e s n o t r e n d e rth e § 2 2 5 5 re m e d yu n a v a ila b le . T ol l i ver v. D obre , 211 F. 3d8 76 , 878 ( 5t h C i r . 200 0) . Bec aus e Sl aug ht e r ’ s re m e dyi s unde r§ 2 25 5 and h e h as n ot ob t ai ne d l e av e o f t hi s c o ur tt o f

i l e as uc c e s s ive § 2 25 5 m o t i o n, t he d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t e r rin d is m is s in gh is p e tit io n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e ris AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10939 Document: 00511121436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2010