IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 District Court for the Southern

District of Illinois for possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to

distribute, cocaine base. His conviction was affirmed. United States v. Singleton,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

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

125 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir. 1997). He subsequently moved to vacate his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (The record lacks information 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 alia, 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, concluding: Singleton sought to raise claims

challenging the validity of his criminal conviction that were more properly raised

in a § 2255 motion; because Singleton had been sentenced in the Southern

District of Illinois, the Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction over

Singleton’s claims or to construe his § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion; and

Singleton had not shown that the § 2255 remedies were inadequate or ineffective

or that he had received permission from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

Singleton contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective DeathPenalty Act

of 1996 (AEDPA) unconstitutionally suspends the 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 contention, however, is

meritless. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 663-65 (1996).

Singleton also maintains the convicting court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction because the section of the Controlled Substances Act under which

he was convicted violates the Tenth Amendment. Singleton’s lack-of-jurisdiction

assertion implies the invalidity of his conviction and sentence. A § 2241 petition

that challenges errors at trial or sentencing is properly construed as a § 2255

motion. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Under § 2255’s “savings clause”, however, if a prisoner can demonstrate

that the § 2255 remedy would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality

of [the prisoner’s] detention”, he may be permitted to pursue a claim under

2

Case: 11-11162 Document: 00511863085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2012
No. 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

requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion, does not make the § 2255

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

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.

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. Moreover, Bond’s holding, which expressed no view on the merits of

defendant’s Tenth Amendment claim, id. at 2367, does not establish that

Singleton may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Reyes-Requena, 243

F.3d at 904. 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