[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 14405 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:17

- cv - 00033

- MCR

- EMT

MICHAEL LEROY JOHNSON, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus WARDEN, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

__________________ ______ (September 19, 2018) Before ED CARNES , Chief Judge, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Leroy Johnson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the Case: 17-14405 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 1 of 42 district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus . In 2005 Johnson pleaded guilty to two counts of producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), 2252, and one count of transporting child pornography in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). He was sentenced to a total of 140 years in prison , and w e affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. Johnson then filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

. T he district court denied that motion and his motion for reconsideration, and w e denied him a certificate of appealability. In 2 017 Johnson filed this § 2241 petition , arguing that he was innocent of the charged conduct because the government had not proven the interstate commerce element of his convictions . Finding that Johnson did not meet the requirements of § 2255(e)’s saving clause, the district
court dismissed his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

“ Whether a prisoner may bring a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unde r the saving clause of section 2255(e) is a question of law we review de novo . ” McCarthan v. Di r . of Goodwill Indu s . Suncoast, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Generally, a federal prisoner collaterally attacks the validity of his federal conviction and sentence by filing a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder , 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). But under the saving clause of § 2255(e), a prisoner may bring a habeas petition under § 2241 if

Case: 17-14405 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 2 of 43 the § 2255 remedy i s “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Johnson argues that § 2255(e) does not impose jurisdictional limits on § 2241 petitions

. He is wrong. A district court may “exercise[ ] jurisdiction” over a prisoner’s § 2241 claim “only if it [falls] within the saving clause of section 2255(e).” McCart han , 851 F.3d at 1080; see also id. at 1081 (“Section 2255(e) makes clear that a motion to vacate is the exclusive mechanism for a federal prisoner to seek collateral relief unless he can satisfy the ‘saving clause’ at the end of that subsection.” ). Johns on relies on c ontrary decisions from the Third and Seventh Circuits, but we are bound by McCarthan , not by the decisions of other circuits. United States v. McGarity , 669 F.3d 1 218, 1266 n.66 (11th Cir. 2012) (“It is axiomatic that this Circuit is bound only by its own precedents and those of the Supreme Court.”)

. Johnson argues that he still can bring this § 2241 petition because his first § 2255 motion was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention .” He asserts that it was “inade quate or ineffective” because at the time , his claim of innocence would have failed under circuit precedent. But “[w]hether circuit precedent was once adverse to a prisoner has nothing to do with whether his motion to vacate his sentence i s ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” McCarthan , 851 F.3d at 1085

– 86 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)); see

Case: 17-14405 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 3 of 44 also id. at 108 0 ( “[A] change in caselaw does not make a motion to vacate a prisoner’s sentence inadequate or ineffective to test the l egality of his detention.”) (quotation marks omitted)

. J ohnson could have “tested the legality of his detention ” in his first § 2255 motion “ by requesting that we reconsider our precedent en banc or by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorar i.” Id.
at 1087. Because Johnson has not shown that his § 2255 motion was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” he may not challenge his convictions and sentence in this § 2241 petition. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-14405 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 Page: 4 of 4