### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30401 Summary Calendar

COREY OUTLAW ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v. C. MAIORANA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale , Responden t

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14

- CV

- 1007

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Corey Outlaw , federal prisoner # 29812

- 018 , was convicted of conspiracy
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime . He is serving a
138

- month term of impri sonment on the conspiracy count and a consecutive
120

- month term of imprisonment on the firearms count. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Outlaw contends that

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30401 Document: 00513490830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016No. 15

- 30401

2 he merits relief under Section 2241 because he is actually innocent of the firearms offense, and his continued incarceration will result in a miscarriage of justice. We review the dismissal of a Section 2241 petition de novo

. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A federal prisoner m ay attack the validity of his conviction in a Section 2241 petition if he can meet the requirements of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001)

. The prisoner must establish that the remedy provided under Section 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Reyes

Requena , 243 F.3d at 901. To make that showing, a prisoner must make a claim (1) “based on a retroactively applicable Supre me Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” that (2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first [Section] 2255 motion.” Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. Outlaw fails to make the required showing. He does not cite a retroactively applicable Supreme Court ruling establishing that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense, and he does not argue that his c laims were foreclosed at the time when they should have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in an initial Section 2255 motion. See id

. Further , his inability to meet the requirements for filing a successive Section 2255 motion does not
make the Section 2 255 remedy inadequate. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Finally , Outlaw’s actual innocence argument is unavailing. See McQuiggin v. Perkins , 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013); Foster v. Quarterman , 466 F.3d 359, 367

− 68 (5th Cir. 2006 ). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-30401 Document: 00513490830 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016