Case Name: Adam BUTLER, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-23
Citations: 122 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 04-60626
Parties: Adam BUTLER, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Adam BUTLER, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-60626.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2005.
Adam Butler, II, # 16645-001, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Robert Gilmon Anderson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Missisippi, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adam Butler, II, federal prisoner # 16645-001, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Relying on Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), Butler filed the petition to attack his conviction in the Northern District of Alabama for use of a firearm in relation to a drug crime.
Butler contends that his Bailey claim falls within the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes 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).
Because his conviction became final pri- or to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Butler had until April 23, 1997, to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Goodman v. United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1337 (11th Cir.1998). Butler has not shown that his Bailey claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when he should have raised the claim in his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.