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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50473

Summary Calendar

DOUGLAS E CAMPBELL 

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN FNU LUNA, Federal Correctional Institute

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CV-569

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas E. Campbell, federal prisoner # 30685-048, appeals the district

court’s denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus he filed challenging his

conviction and 245-month sentence for conspiring to distribute an unspecified

amount methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. Campbell

argues that the district court committed numerous procedural errors in handling

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50473

2

his case and erred in determining that he was not entitled to raise his claims in

a 8 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

Campbell’s allegations of procedural error lack any basis in law or fact.

Moreover, Campbell has not shown that the district court erred in determining

that he was not entitled raise his claims in a § 2241 petition. As a general rule,

a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his

conviction or sentence must file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United

States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may be raised in a

§ 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows

that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

detention.” § 2255(e). Campbell has not made such a showing. Campbell argues

that he may proceed under the savings clause because he intends to raise claims

based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Campbell has not

established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme

Court decision which establishes that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense.

Wesson v. United States Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th

Cir. 2002); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Campbell has not shown that he should be allowed to raise his claims in

a § 2241 petition notwithstanding his failure to meet the requirements of the

savings clause. Campbell has not established that his alleged actual innocence

of his sentence provides a “gateway” through which the district court is

authorized to review his claims or that the district court should hear his claims

because he reserved the right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea

agreement. Finally, Campbell has not shown that the district court should hear

his claims because the requirements of 2255's savings clause violate the

Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution. See Wesson, 305 F.3d at

346. 

As Campbell is not entitled to raise his claims in a § 2241 petition, his

argument that the district court erred by failing to address his substantive
No. 08-50473

3

challenges to his conviction and sentence lacks merit. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.