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

No. 18

- 30916 Summary Calendar

KENNETH D. JACKSON ,
P etitioner

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Responde nt

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18

- CV

- 589

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth D. Jackson, federal prisoner # 68790

- 080 , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he attacked the 1 80

- month sentence imposed following his conviction for possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base. Jackson asserted that his pri or conviction in Texas for delivery of a controlled substance no longer qualified as a predicate offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and, therefore , he no longer qualified for a career

-

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 June 11, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30916 Document: 00514991193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2019No. 18

- 30916

2 offender enhancement

. The district court found that Jackson fail ed to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). We review the
dismissal of Jackson’s § 2241 petition de novo. Christopher v. Miles , 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003).
Jackson maintains that the district court erred by dismis sing his § 2241 petition without first reviewing his objections to the magistrate judge’s report. However, Jackson did not timely file objections, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 72(b)(2), and has not shown that he was otherwise prejudiced by the district court’s failure to review them

. See Smith v. Collins , 964 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1992). This case did not involve factual disputes and concerned only legal issues that the district court readily could consider

. See Smith , 964 F.2d at 485; Rutledge v. Wainwright , 625 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1980). Moreover, Jackson has not identified a legal claim raised in his objections that could have altered the district court’s disposition of his petition. Thus , even if the district

co urt should have reviewed the objections , any error was harmless. See Smith , 964 F.2d at 485. On appeal, Jackson reurges his claim that he was wrongly sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1 because his Texas conviction for delivery of a
controlled s ubstance no longer warrants application of the enhancemen t

. He contends that there has been a n intervening change in the law that affects the application of the Sentencing Guidelines and the validity of his sentence. He

argues that he may file a § 2241 petition because he is unable to challenge the application of the Guidelines in a § 2255 motion. A prisoner may use § 2241 to challenge his conviction only if the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to contest the l egality of his detention. § 2255(e). A § 2241 petition is not a substitute for a § 2255 motion, and Jackson must establish the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion by meeting Case: 18-30916 Document: 00514991193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2019No. 18

- 30916

3 the savings clause of § 2255. See § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Under that clause, Jackson must show that his petition asserts a claim based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that supports
that he m ay have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claim was foreclosed when it should have been asserted in his trial, direct appeal, or original § 2255 motion. Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 904

. Jackson contends only that his sentence was illega lly enhanced and does not maintain that he was convicted of a nonexistent crime or that he is actually innocent of the offense of conviction. Challenges to the validity of a sentencing enhancement do not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255(e). See In re Bradford , 660 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011); Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 426

- 27 (5th Cir. 2005); Kinder v. Purdy , 222 F.3d 209, 213

- 14 (5th Cir. 2000). He otherwise has not cited a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that
addresse s whether he was convicted of conduct that is not a crime. See Padilla , 416 F.3d at 425

- 26; Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. Thus, Jackson has failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. Case: 18-30916 Document: 00514991193 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2019