IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50222

Summary Calendar

BERT DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-373

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After a jury in the District of the Northern Mariana Islands convicted 

Bert Douglas Montgomery, federal prisoner # 00388-005, of various fraudrelated charges, he unsuccessfully sought to vacate his convictions and 

sentence on direct appeal and in multiple postconviction motions before the 

convicting court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thereafter, 

Montgomery filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the 

El Paso Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50222 Document: 00514003972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2017
No. 16-50222

2

Texas, which encompasses the correctional facility where Montgomery is 

presently detained. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(3).

The district court liberally construed Montgomery’s petition to allege 

eight separate claims. After setting forth the requirements for obtaining 

§ 2241 relief adopted by this court in Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 

893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001), the district court concluded that six of 

Montgomery’s claims failed to cite a retroactively applicable Supreme Court 

decision that established that Montgomery was convicted of a nonexistent 

offense. The district court then determined that Montgomery’s claim based on 

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), raised in an application to file a 

successive § 2255 motion before the Ninth Circuit, had been correctly 

dismissed by that court for failure to timely raise it in his initial § 2255 motion. 

The district court also concluded that his final claim under Skilling v. United 

States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), should have been brought in a successive § 2255 

motion, but that the time for filing such a motion had already passed when

Montgomery filed his § 2241 petition. Concluding that Montgomery failed to 

show the §2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective, the district court denied 

habeas relief and dismissed the case. Montgomery appeals.

We review the dismissal of Montgomery’s § 2241 petition de novo. Pack 

v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2241 petition that attacks 

custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained under 

the savings clause of § 2255 if the petitioner establishes that the remedy 

provided under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his 

detention. § 2255(e); see Reyes-Requena 243 F.3d at 901. To make the required 

showing, Montgomery must establish that his claims are based on a 

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he may 

have been convicted of a nonexistent offense, and that his claims were 

 Case: 16-50222 Document: 00514003972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2017
No. 16-50222

3

foreclosed by circuit law at the time the claim should have been raised in his 

trial, direct appeal, or first § 2255 motion. See id. at 904. 

On appeal, Montgomery fails to address the district court’s reasons for 

denying his claims and dismissing his § 2241 petition. Moreover, he makes no 

effort to demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria for § 2241 relief set forth in 

Reyes-Requena; instead, he attacks the integrity of the prosecution and trial, 

the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, and the jurisdiction 

of the trial court. Accordingly, he has abandoned any claim that he is entitled 

to § 2241 relief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating 

that pro se appellants must brief arguments in order to preserve them); 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987) (holding that an appellant’s failure to address the merits of a district 

court’s decision or to identify any error in its legal analysis was “the same as if 

he had not appealed that judgment”). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All outstanding 

motions are DENIED.

 Case: 16-50222 Document: 00514003972 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2017