Case Name: Thomas M. DUBOSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Forth Worth, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 05-10703
Parties: Thomas M. DUBOSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Forth Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
Thomas M. DUBOSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Forth Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-10703
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Thomas M. Dubose, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas M. Dubose, federal prisoner # 06261-043, was convicted in 2002 in the Southern District of Mississippi of manufacturing in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Dubose filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence, and he now appeals the district court's dismissal of his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Dubose has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed as a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir.1987). Dubose's contention that his claim under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), falls under § 2255's savings clause lacks merit. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir.2005). His argument that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing was raised for the first time in his appeal to this court, and we will not consider it. See Leggett v. Fleming, 380 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.2004).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.