Case Name: Russell MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 04-41224
Parties: Russell MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 657–657

Head Matter:
Russell MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Constance REESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-41224.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Russell Bradley Marks, Federal Prison Camp Marianna, Marianna, FL, pro se.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Russell Marks ("Marks"), federal prisoner # 06550-045, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. Marks argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because the trial court did not advise him that he faced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. He contends that he should be allowed to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because "he has not had an unobstructed shot at getting his conviction or sentence vacated." Marks cites to Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004) and United States v. White, 371 F.Supp.2d 378 (W.D.N.Y.2005) in support of his argument.
Marks has not shown that his claim meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255's "savings clause." He has not shown that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that such claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Marks's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.