IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40558

Summary Calendar

DANIEL THOMASON SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CV-581

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Daniel Thomason Smith, 

federal prisoner # 29163-380, contests the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition challenging his convictions and sentences for: conspiracy to commit

health-care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 1349; aiding and 

abetting health-care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1347; aiding and 

abetting aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1028; and 

* 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 19, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40558 Document: 00515459433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2020
No. 19-40558

2

aiding and abetting making false statements related to a health-care matter, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1035. The district court dismissed the § 2241 

petition because Smith’s claims, based on Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 

65, 67 (2014) (holding, in prosecution for aiding and abetting violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c), Government must prove defendant had “advance knowledge 

that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime’s commission”),

did not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause, discussed infra. (Smith 

also contends his conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment;

however, this contention “will not be considered” because it is made “for the 

first time on appeal”. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011)

(citation omitted).)

The dismissal of Smith’s § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo. Pack v. 

Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Section “2241 is 

typically used to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed”. ReyesRequena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900–01 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation 

omitted). Section “2255, on the other hand, is the primary means under which 

a federal prisoner may collaterally attack the legality of his conviction or 

sentence”. Id. at 901 (citation omitted). Under § 2255(e)’s savings clause,

however, petitioner may employ § 2241 to challenge a conviction and sentence

if it “appears that the remedy [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test 

the legality of [petitioner’s] detention”. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Petitioner 

satisfies the savings clause by showing his claim: “is based on a retroactively 

applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may 

have been convicted of a nonexistent offense”; and “was foreclosed by circuit 

law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, 

appeal, or first § 2255 motion”. Id. at 904.

 Case: 19-40558 Document: 00515459433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2020
No. 19-40558

3

Smith fails both prongs. Because Rosemond was decided in 2014 and 

Smith’s trial was in 2016, he “has not demonstrated that Rosemond applies 

retroactively to [his] case[]”. United States v. Nix, 694 F. App’x 287, 288 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Moreover, because Rosemond was decided in 

2014, his contentions were not foreclosed or unavailable at the time of his 2016 

trial, and he could have also raised them either on appeal or in a § 2255 motion. 

See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. Accordingly, he fails to show the court 

erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40558 Document: 00515459433 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2020