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 challenging the life sentence 

imposed following his 2005 conviction on multiple drug offenses. His petition 

alleges that 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 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

June 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30282 Document: 00513543516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2016
No. 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 clause of § 2255. That clause 

allows a federal prisoner to attack the legality of his conviction or sentence via 

§ 2241 when relief under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). 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 circuit 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 

convicted of a nonexistent 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 of justice’ or actual innocence relating to the 

alleged sentencing errors.”).

 Case: 15-30282 Document: 00513543516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2016
No. 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 within 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