Case Name: Clarence E. CYRUS, Petitioner-Appellant v. William A. SHERROD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-16
Citations: 477 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 11-30746
Parties: Clarence E. CYRUS, Petitioner-Appellant v. William A. SHERROD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Clarence E. CYRUS, Petitioner-Appellant v. William A. SHERROD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-30746
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 16, 2012.
Clarence E. Cyrus, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clarence E. Cyrus, federal prisoner # 95574-071, is serving life in prison in Pollock, Louisiana, after pleading guilty in the District of South Carolina to distribution of cocaine base and conspiracy to dis: tribute cocaine and cocaine base. He appeals the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition asserting that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict him because the Government did not file a complaint in his criminal case. Cyrus previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District of South Carolina.
Cyrus does not address whether his § 2241 petition satisfied the savings clause of § 2255. His failure to discuss the district court's basis for dismissing his claim, "without even the slightest identification of any error in [the district court's] legal analysis or its application to [his] suit ., is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment." Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).
Moreover, even if Cyrus properly briefed the relevant question, the district court correctly determined that his claim was not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. One may challenge his conviction under § 2241 only if he establishes that "the remedy [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." § 2255(e); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001). Cyrus does not rely upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he is actually innocent. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.