P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10914 C onfer enc e Cal endar NATIVI DAD S I LVA, J R Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. D AN BE RK EB I LE , W ar de n 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. 3: 08- C V
- 1240 B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * I n January 1993, N at ivi dad Si lva, Jr . , now f ede r alpr i so ner# 23 368- 077, w as c onvi c t ed bygui l t y pl ea f orr obbe r y af

fec t i ng c om m er c e i n C ount s 1, 2, 3, and 5 and f

o r po s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e ar m dur i ng a c r i m e o f v i o l e nc e i n Count s 4 a nd 6 . H e w a s sen ten ced to co n cu rren t 97 -m on th term s of i m p ri son m en t on C ou n ts 1, 2 , 3 , a nd 5; a co ns e c ut ive 60 m o nt h- t e r m of i m pr i s o nm e nto n Count4 ; a nd a c o ns e c ut ive 2 40
- m o nt h t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e nton C o unt6. H e a ppe al s f r o m t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10914

2 di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alof hi s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 1 pe t i t i o n f o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n. Th i s c our tr evi ew s a di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss alon t he pl eadi n gs of a § 2241 p e tit io n d e n o v o . Pa ck v. Yu suff , 2 1 8 F .3d 4 4 8 , 4 5 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In C ou n t6, S i lva and Jesu s S i lva (h erei n af t er ref erred t o as Jesus) w ere ch a rg ed w i th k n ow i n gly u sing a n d ca rry i n g a firea rm du ri n g a n di n relati on to a cri m e of

vi ol en ce, i n vi ol ati on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 2 an d 924(c) ( 1) . S i lva con cedes th a t th e re co r d e s t a b li sh e dth a t h e ro b b e da n a rm o re dtru ck w ith th e u se of a f i r e ar m a nd t hatJ e s us pr o vi de d hi m w i t h t r ans po r t at i o n t o and f r o m t he s c e ne o f th e cr im e . S ilv a a rg u e s th a t, in li g h t of B ailey v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 516 U . S. 137 (1 9 9 5 ), J e s u s s h o u l d n o th a v e b e e n co n v ic te do f u s in go rca r r y in ga fir e a r m in vi ol ati on of

§ 92 4( c) ( 1) . S i lva con cl u des t h at he coul d n otha ve been convi ct ed of a id in go ra b e tt in g J e s u s ’ s v io la tio n o f § 9 2 4 (c )(1 ) a n dth a t h e is th e r e fo r e a c tu a lly i nnoce ntof

C ount6. W h en a defen da n ti s c h arged as bot h a pri n ci pa la n d a s an aider or abett or, t h e pri n ci pa lneed not be i den t i f i ed an d the defenda n tm ay be con vi ct ed a s e ith e rap r in c ip a l o ra n a id e ro ra b e tt o r . Un i t ed Stat es v. Pearson , 655 F. 2d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 -7 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). A s S ilv a fa il e dto s h o w th a t h e w a s a c tu a lly i n n ocent of

C ou n t6, he d i d n otm eett h e “ savi n gs cl au se” of 28 U . S . C . § 22 55(e) by sh ow i n g t h at t h e rem edy provi ded u n der § 225 5 i s “i n ad equ ate ori n ef fect ive” to te s t th e le g a lity o f h is d e te n tio n . S ee Ch ri st oph er v. Mi les , 342 F . 3d 378, 382 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). S ilv a ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n dth e r e fo r e fr iv o lo u s . S ee Ho w ar d v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9
- 2 0 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is d is m i s s e d . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. Si lva i s w arn ed that f u rt h er f rivol ou s f

i l i n gs w i l lres u l ti n t h e i m posi t i on of sancti on s. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED .