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

No. 15

- 30282 Summary Calendar

NASIR ABDUL ALI, also known as Donnie Ray Reed , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. MICHAEL D. CARVAJAL, Warden, United States Penitentiary Pollock , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 173

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nasir Abdul Ali, federal prisoner # 09596

- 042, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challen ging the life sentence imposed following his 2005 conviction on multiple drug offenses. His petition alleges t hat his mandatory life sentence was unconstitutional because his prior convictions did not qualify as felony drug offenses for purposes of 21 U.S .C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 June 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30282 Document: 00513543516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2016No. 15

- 30282

2 As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge his conviction or sentences must file a § 2255 motion in the sentencing court. See Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 426

- 27 (5th Cir. 2005). A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to § 2241 is generally reserved for challenges to the manner in which the sentence is being executed. There is an exception, however, pursuant to the savings clau se of § 2255. That clause
allows a federal prisoner to attack the legality of his conviction or sentence via § 2241 when relief under § 225 5 is inadequate or ineffective. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 20 01). We have held that the § 2255 procedure is inadequate when a claim (i) is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the defendant may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) was foreclosed by circu it law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, direct appeal, or first § 2255 motion. Reyes

- , 243 F.3d at 904

. We have consistently held that challenges to the validity of a sentencing enhancement, which is the argument Abdul Ali raises, do not satisfy the savings clause. See, e.g., In re Bradford , 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that the petitioner’s claim that he was actually innocent of the career offender enhancement was not a claim that he was actually innocent of the offense of conviction); Padilla , 416 F.3d at 426

- 27 ( holding that the petitioner’s claim that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum did not satisfy the first prong of the Reyes

- Requena test because he failed to show that he was convi cted of a no nexistent offense); Preston v. Ask

- Carlson , 583 F. App’x 462, 463 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[C]laims relating to sentencing determinations do not fall within the savings clause and are not cognizable under § 2241, even where the petitioner asserts a ‘miscarriage o f justice’ or actual innocence relating to the alleged sentencing errors.”). Case: 15-30282 Document: 00513543516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2016No. 15

- 30282

3 Relying on the Solicitor General’s concession in Persaud v. United States , 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014), Abdul Ali argues that the savings clause should extend to a previously foreclosed argument that the prisoner was actually innocent of a mandatory life sentence. But the Department of Justice’s litigation cannot override our precedent holding that sentencing issues do not invoke the savings clause. And the Supreme Court did not issue a substantive ruling in Persaud ; it only granted the petition, vacated the judgment below, and then remanded to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Solicitor General’ s position. 134 S. Ct. at 1023. Under our precedent, Abdul Ali has failed to demonstrate that his claim fell with in the savings clause of § 2255. See Padilla , 416 F.3d at 426

- 27. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-30282 Document: 00513543516 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2016