### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11149 Summary Calendar

DAVID EARL MAJORS, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WARDEN RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-586

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Earl Majors, federal p risoner # 03136-180, is serving a 262-month sentence f

or possession with intent to d i s t r ib u te cocaine. United States v. Majors , 328 F.3d 791, 793-94 (5th Cir. 2 003). Majors filed a petition for habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2 241, arguing that his d u e p r o c ess rights had been violated b eca u s e h is sentence was “enhanced without a valid ‘factual basis.’” He also a rgued that his trial counsel rendered i n e f f e c tiveness, the indictment was defective, he was actually i nnocent, and he was convicted under U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11149 Document: 00512276222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2013No. 12-11149

an amb i g u o u s s tatute. The district court dismissed the petition, determining that Majors’s claims were not cognizable under § 2241 s ince they challenged Majors’s conviction and sent e nce. On appeal, Majors challenges the district court’s dismissal by reasserting his claims. The claims raised b y Majors in h is § 2241 petition attacked the v alidity of his drug conviction an d s e n t e n c e . Thus, the district court did not err in its determination that such claims would be properly brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ). Furthermore, Majors’s c laims a re n ot based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that w ould h ave established he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F .31 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). As such, he has not shown that he can invoke the savings clause. See id. Because Majors challenged the validity of conviction and s entence in his § 2241 p etition and has failed to demonstrate that his claims f a l l w i t hin the “sa v i n g s c lause” of § 2255(e), the district court did not err in dismissing his petition. Because M ajors c ontinues to disregard this court’s warning about repetitive f

ilings, he is ORDERED to pay a sanction in the amount of $250 to the Clerk of this Court, and he is BARRED from filing in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any c hallenge to this conviction o r s entence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains lea v e of the court in which he seeks to file such challenge. Majors is once again CAUTIONED that filing a ny future frivolous or repetitive challenges to his conviction or s entence in this court or any court s ubject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

2 Case: 12-11149 Document: 00512276222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2013