Case Name: Lennie JOHN, 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: 2006-04-11
Citations: 177 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 05-10526
Parties: Lennie JOHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 390–390

Head Matter:
Lennie JOHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-10526.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
Lennie John, 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 JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lennie John, federal prisoner No. 05055-088, appeals the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence for distribution of cocaine base. John challenges the constitutionality of his sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).
John alleges errors that occurred at sentencing, which may not be asserted in a § 2241 petition unless they arise under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). As John has failed to show that he is entitled to proceed under the § 2255 savings clause, see id., the district court did not err by dismissing John's § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 385 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.