### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10720 Summary Calendar

MARY K. EDELMANN, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WARDEN JOE KEFFER, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-531

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary K. Edelmann, federal prisoner # 10316-064, appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition alleging that her convictions for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire f r au d in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 ar e invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Skilling v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2907 (2010), that the hone st s ervices fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, criminalizes only conduct involving bribery and kickback schemes. The district court determined U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f Ap p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May11 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d circum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10720 Document: 00511852970 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2012No. 11-10720

that Edelmann’s claims failed to satisfy the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to brief the merits. We deny both motions and AFFIRM. Under § 2241, w e review factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Christopher v. Miles , 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record. Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 199 9). 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. Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Christopher , 342 F.3d at 381-82. The savings clause is applicable only to a claim that (i) “is based on a retr o ac tiv ely applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petition e r may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and that (ii) “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 v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The petitioner bears the “stringent” burden of affirmatively showing that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective and that she is entitl ed to avail herself of the “limited exception” found in the savings clause. Christopher , 342 F.3d at 382. E d e l m ann has not made this showing. She has failed to show that th e district court erred in holding that Skilling is irrelevant because her offenses did

no t involve honest services fraud, but were instead “classic schemes to steal money.” She has also failed to show that the district court erred in denying her reques t f

o r production of documents. As the record refutes Edelmann’s claim that she was convicted on a theory of honest services fraud, see United States v. Edelmann , 458 F.3d 791, 797-800, 811

- 1 3 ( 8th Cir. 2006), the denial of her

2 Case: 11-10720 Document: 00511852970 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2012No. 11-10720

motio n for production of documents was neither arbitrary nor clearly unreasonable. United States v. MacCollom , 426 U.S. 317, 324-25 (197 6). Skilling does not establish that Edelmann was convicted of nonexistent offenses. Consequently, we need not decide whether it applies retroactively to

cases on collateral review or wheth er Edelmann’s purported claim was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent because she cannot meet her burden regardless. See Christopher , 342 F.3d at 382; Reyes-Requena , 243 F.3d at 904. AFFIRMED; MO TIONS FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE AND EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED.

3 Case: 11-10720 Document: 00511852970 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2012