IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30401

Summary Calendar

COREY OUTLAW,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

C. MAIORANA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale,

Respondent-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 imprisonment 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 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30401 Document: 00513490830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
No. 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 may 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); ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 901. To make that showing, a prisoner must make a 

claim (1) “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme 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 claims 

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 2255 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