Case Name: Bernard Vincent MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-17
Citations: 104 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 04-40372
Parties: Bernard Vincent MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Bernard Vincent MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-40372.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
Bernard Vincent Montgomery, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Vincent Montgomery, federal inmate #53653-146, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Montgomery asserts that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the manner in which his sentence was being executed and that the district court erred by construing the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that the application of the Sentencing Guidelines in the determination of his sentence constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Section 2255, 28 U.S.C., is used to collaterally attack a federal conviction and sentence based on errors that occurred at trial or sentencing. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001). Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., is used generally to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. Montgomery's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the use of the Sentencing Guidelines, an alleged error that occurred at sentencing, and was construed properly under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830.
The district court did not err in concluding that Montgomery's petition did not meet the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31. Montgomery has not shown that his claims were " 'based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.' " Id. at 830 (citation omitted). Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.