IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60071

Summary Calendar

LAUREANO CHIRINO RIVERA,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN BONITA S. MOSLEY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:14-CV-935

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Laureano Chirino Rivera, federal prisoner # 79091-004, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. The district court determined that Rivera’s claims attacked the 

validity of his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and 

conspiracy to carry a firearm during a crime of violence, which were imposed 

in the Southern District of Florida. The district court determined that Rivera 

 

* 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

December 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60071 Document: 00513302571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
No. 15-60071

2

could not pursue relief under § 2241 because he failed to show that the remedy 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective, as is required by 

the savings clause of § 2255(e). We review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition 

de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000).

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under § 2241 and a motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence filed under § 2255 are “distinct 

mechanisms for seeking post-conviction relief.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 

451 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2255 provides the primary means of collaterally 

attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 

877 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2241 is generally used to attack the manner in 

which a sentence is executed. Id. A petition filed under § 2241 attacking errors 

that occurred at trial or sentencing should be construed as a § 2255 motion. 

See id. at 877-78.

The district court correctly determined that the claims raised in Rivera’s 

§ 2241 petition challenged his underlying convictions and sentences rather 

than the manner in which his sentences are being executed. Because Rivera’s 

claims arise under § 2255, he may bring them in a § 2241 petition only if he 

can meet the requirements of § 2255’s savings clause by showing that the 

remedy under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of 

his detention.” § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 

(5th Cir. 2001). To make such a showing, he must establish that his claims are

“based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes 

that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and that 

the claims were “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should 

have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” ReyesRequena, 343 F.3d at 904.

 Case: 15-60071 Document: 00513302571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
No. 15-60071

3

In his appellate brief, Rivera renews several claims set forth in his § 2241 

petition, but he makes no attempt to establish that his claims meet the 

requirements of the savings clause. He has failed to show error in the district 

court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

Rivera has now filed a total of four unmeritorious § 2241 petitions 

attacking the same convictions and sentences. He has also, on at least three 

occasions, sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. He is hereby 

WARNED that filing frivolous or repetitive challenges to these convictions or 

sentence in this court or in any court subject to the jurisdiction of this court 

will invite the imposition of sanctions. Rivera is DIRECTED to review any 

pending matters to ensure that they are not frivolous or repetitive.

 Case: 15-60071 Document: 00513302571 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2015