# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 60148 Summary Calendar

**Kingy Ossarius Holden,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Warden S. Reiser,**

Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:20

- CV

- 400

Before **Stewart, Duncan,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Kingy Ossarius Holden, federal inmate # 29356

- 001 , was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama of, inter alia , being a felon in possession of
a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in
that court challenging his § 922(g) conviction, which was denied. Following

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circu it 

### FILED November 4, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60148 Document: 00516534832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022No. 22

- 60148

2 the issuance of Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) , Holden filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Mississippi, where he is incarcerated, challenging the sufficiency o f the evidence supporting his § 922(g) conviction. Concluding that Holden failed to satisfy the § 2255(e) “savings clause,” the district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Holden now appeals, and we affirm.
A prisoner may, pursuant to the § 2255(e) “savings clause,” challenge the basis of his federal custody in a § 2241 petition if he shows that th e remedy under § 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” § 2255 (e) ; Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 24 3 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). “[T] he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may
have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that 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 .” Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at

904.

In Rehaif , the Supreme Court held that to convict a defendant under § 922(g), the Government must prove , relevantly, that the defendant knew he belonged to the pertinent category of persons barred from possessing a
firearm. Rehaif , 139 S. Ct. at 2200. Holden neither avers that he was unaware of his prohibited status as a felon at the time he possessed the relevant firearm nor points to any evidence or theory supporting a finding that he was unaware of his prohibited status. See Abram v. McConnell , 3 F.4th 783, 785

- 86 (5th
Cir. 2021). In fact, he stipulated at trial to having prior felony convictions,
which is “sufficient evidence to establish that he knew he was a felon” under Rehaif

. United States v. Kieffer , 991 F.3d 630, 635 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 297 (2021). Consequently, Holden fails to show that the district Case: 22-60148 Document: 00516534832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022No. 22

- 60148

3 court’s savings clause determination was error. See Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction is

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-60148 Document: 00516534832 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2022