Case Name: Benjamin TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY; R.D. Miles, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 83 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 03-40872
Parties: Benjamin TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY; R.D. Miles, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Benjamin TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY; R.D. Miles, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-40872
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Tillman, federal inmate # 04060-017, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Because Tillman's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the legality of his conviction, Tillman was required to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an inadequate or ineffective remedy. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2000). "[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which established that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner's trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion." Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir .2001).
To bring his claim under the "savings clause," Tillman argues that he could not have brought the instant claim that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to sentence him until 1998, when the Eleventh Circuit issued Harris v. United States, 149 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.1998). Harris, however, is not a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that Tillman may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Because Tillman fails to identify any authority demonstrating that he was convicted of a non-existent offense, his jurisdictional challenge to his conviction fails to satisfy the first prong of the Reyes-Requena test. The district court's dismissal of Tillman's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is therefore 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.