United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60148 Document: 00516534832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 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 of 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 the 

remedy under § 2255 “is 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); 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 aversthat 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: 11/04/2022
No. 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