Case Name: Doyce Elliott HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Terrell L. Harris, U.S. Attorney; L.E. Fleming, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-21
Citations: 106 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 04-10258
Parties: Doyce Elliott HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Terrell L. Harris, U.S. Attorney; L.E. Fleming, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
Doyce Elliott HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Terrell L. Harris, U.S. Attorney; L.E. Fleming, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-10258.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 21, 2004.
Doyce Elliott Hunt, Port Worth, TX, Pro Se.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In August 2002, Doyce Elliott Hunt, federal prisoner # 18118-078, was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He appeals, pro se, the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas petition challenging that conviction. The district court denied Hunt's petition on the basis that: Hunt admitted he had previously filed a § 2255 motion; he could not meet the requirements for filing a successive habeas petition; and his § 2241 petition was merely an attempt to circumvent those requirements.
The district court erred, however, because Hunt did not acknowledge the previous filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and there is no record of Hunt having done so. Although that basis for the denial is erroneous, we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See United States v. Real Property, 123 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir.1997).
Hunt's § 2241 petition was properly denied on the ground that he failed to show that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir.2001).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.