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

No. 15

- 40703 Summary Calendar

ALFRED CHEESE, III , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. WARDEN FRANK LARA , Respondent

– Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CV

- 296

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfred Cheese, III , federal prisoner # 33175

- 037, appeals the district court’ s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition , which challenged his statutorily

- enhanced life sentences for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon

. Cheese invoked Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137 (2008),

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 May 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40703 Document: 00513516990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016No. 15

- 40703

2 United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He also argued that he was actually innocent of murder conduct used to calculate his guideline range and that the denial of a sentence modification or reduction violated his right to equal protection. On appeal, Cheese challenges the dismissal of his Al leyne , Begay , and Descamps claims. Our review is de novo. Kinder v. Purdy , 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

. The district court determined that the claims should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and did not fit within the savings clause of § 2255(e) because they challenged the validity of Cheese’s enhanced sentence s , not his conviction. We agree, having previously held that the savings clause only applies to § 2241 claims that, among other things, are based on a retroactively appl icable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner “ may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense

. ” Reyes

Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) ; see Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 426

- 27 (5th Cir. 2005) ( per curiam)

. Cheese’s argument that Persaud v. United States , 134 S. Ct. 1023 (2014) (mem.), allows him to proceed under the savings clause is unavailing. See Robinson v. United States , 812 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)

. Che e se fails to address, and has thus abandoned , the remaining claims that he raised in the district court. See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999)

. We decline to consider Cheese’s new claims based on Carachuri

- Rosendo v. Holder , 560 U.S. 563 (2010) , as he first raises them here , s ee Wilson v. Roy , 643 F.3d 433, 435 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011)

. For the same reason,

w e decline to consider his new claims based on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 25 51 (2015)

. S ee Wilson , 643 F.3d at 435 n.1

. Cheese may seek to present his claim based on Johnson in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Cheese was convicted and sentenced in Maryland. Case: 15-40703 Document: 00513516990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016No. 15

- 40703

3 AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40703 Document: 00513516990 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2016