Case Information
*1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Noah R. Robinson, federal prisoner # 99857-024, is serving a life sentence for various offenses related to his role in a drug trafficking, racketeering, and murder-for-hire conspiracy, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Relying on Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. *2 Case: 16-40760 Document: 00514045343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2017
No. 16-40760
466 (2000), he argues that he received illegal sentences. Robinson filed two motions in addition to his brief: a motion for leave to file exhibits and a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. We review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Padilla v. United States , 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005).
Generally a federal prisoner must seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. Id. at 426. However, he may raise claims in a § 2241 petition where the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and thus the claims fall within the savings clause of § 2255(e). Id . He must establish that his claims (1) are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (2) were foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, direct appeal, or first § 2255 motion. Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). To meet the first prong, he must show “that based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, he was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime.” Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2001).
Robinson does not argue that he was convicted of now-nonexistent offenses. Instead, he asserts that his sentences were illegal. However, a challenge to the legality of a sentence does not fall within the savings clause. See Padilla , 416 F.3d at 426-27. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s petition is affirmed, and his motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and a motion for leave to file exhibits are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.