IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11149

Summary Calendar

DAVID EARL MAJORS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN RODNEY W. CHANDLER,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-586

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Earl Majors, federal prisoner # 03136-180, is serving a 262-month

sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. United States v.

Majors, 328 F.3d 791, 793-94 (5th Cir. 2003). Majors filed a petition for habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his due process rights had

been violated because his sentence was “enhanced without a valid ‘factual

basis.’” He also argued that his trial counsel rendered ineffectiveness, the

indictment was defective, he was actually innocent, and he was convicted under

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

an ambiguous statute. The district court dismissed the petition, determining

that Majors’s claims were not cognizable under § 2241 since they challenged

Majors’s conviction and sentence. On appeal, Majors challenges the district

court’s dismissal by reasserting his claims.

The claims raised by Majors in his § 2241 petition attacked the validity of

his drug conviction and sentence. 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 Cir. 2000). Furthermore,

Majors’s claims are not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court

decision that would have 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 sentence in his

§ 2241 petition and has failed to demonstrate that his claims fall within the

“savings clause” of § 2255(e), the district court did not err in dismissing his

petition. Because Majors continues to disregard this court’s warning about

repetitive filings, 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 challenge to this conviction or sentence

until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in

which he seeks to file such challenge. Majors is once again CAUTIONED that

filing any future frivolous or repetitive challenges to his conviction or sentence

in this court or any court subject 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