### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11162 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY DEAN SINGLETON, Petitioner - Appellant

v. ERIC HOLDER, US Attorney General; KAREN EDENFIELD, Warden, Respondents - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-181

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Dean Singleton, federal prisoner # 03482-025, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , challenges the dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The dismissal is reviewed de novo . Kinder v. Purdy , 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). Singleton was convicted in 1996 in the D i s t r i c t C ourt for the Southern District of Illinois for possession with intent to distribute, and conspir a c y to distribute, cocaine base. His conviction was affirme d

. U nited States v. Singleton ,

U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May22 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11162 Document: 00511863085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2012No. 11-11162

125 F.3d 1097 (7th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 )

. He subsequently moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (The recor d l a c k s i nformation regarding the disposition of that proceeding.) Singleton filed the § 2241 petition at issue in the Northern District of Texas, where he is currently incarcerated. He maintained, inter a l ia , that the district court in Illinois had lacked jurisdiction over the charges for which he had been convicted. The district court under review sua sponte dismissed the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, con c l u d i n g: Singleton sought to raise claims challe n gi n g th e v ali dity of his criminal conviction that were more properly raised in a § 2255 motion; becau s e S i ngleton had been sentenced in the Southern District of Illinoi s , t h e Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction over Singleton’s claims or to construe his § 2241 petition as a § 2 2 5 5 m o t ion; and Singleton had not shown that the § 2255 remedies were inadequate or ineffective

or that he had received permiss i o n f r o m the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. S in gl e t o n c o nt e n ds that the Antiterrorism and Effec tiv e D e ath P e n alty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) unconstitutionally suspend s t h e writ of habeas corpus and, thus, his claim that his conviction violates the Tenth Amendment is cognizable in a § 2241 petition. This suspension-of-the-writ contenti o n , h o w ever, is meritless. Felker v. Turpin , 518 U.S. 651, 663-65 (199 6). Singleton a lso maintains the convicting court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the section of the Controlled Substances Act unde r w hich h e was convicted violates the Tenth Amendment. Singleton’s la c k

- o f

-j uri s dic ti o n assertion implies the invalidity of his conviction and sentence. A § 2241 petition that challenges errors at trial or sentenc i n g is properly construed as a § 2255 motion. Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2 001). Under § 2255’s “savin g s c l a u se”, however, if a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the l e g a l i ty of [the prisoner’s] detention”, he may be permitted to pursu e a claim under
2 Case: 11-11162 Document: 00511863085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2012No. 11-11162

§ 2241. Id. at 901. The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that § 2255 relief would be ineffective or inadequate. Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to meet the

r e quirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion, does not make the § 2 2 5 5 remedy inadequate. Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Rather, “the savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively

a p plicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been co n v i cted 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. To establish that the § 2255 “savings clause” applies, Singleton relies on Bond v. United States , 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2366-67 (2011). Bond , a direct criminal appeal, has not been found, however, to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. M o r e over, Bond’s holding, which expressed no view on the merits of defendant’s Tenth Amendment claim, id. at 2367, d oes not establish that Singleton may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Reyes-Requena , 243 F.3d at 9 0 4

. As such, Singleton cannot show that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-11162 Document: 00511863085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2012