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 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

May 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40703 Document: 00513516990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
No. 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 Alleyne, 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 sentences, 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 applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes 

that the petitioner “may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” ReyesRequena 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). 

Cheese 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, 

see Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011). For the same reason, 

we decline to consider his new claims based on Johnson v. United States, 135 

S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See 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: 05/23/2016
No. 15-40703

3

AFFIRMED.

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