Case Name: Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 05-10476
Parties: Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-10476.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2006.
Nathaniel Howard Thomas, 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 STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and that the Government had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Thomas argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition. This court reviews issues of law de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).
A petition filed under § 2241 which attacks errors that occurred at trial or sen tencing should be dismissed or construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id.; Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2000). Thomas's § 2241 petition challenged his conviction, rather than attacking the manner in which his sentence was being executed. Thomas has not shown that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.2000) (prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion or inability to meet successive-petition requirements does not render § 2255 "inadequate"). Further, the district court lacked jurisdiction to construe Thomas's petition as a successive motion under § 2255. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999). The district court's judgment dismissing Thomas's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.