IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30344
Conference Calendar
MICHAEL ANTHONY SPENCER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-14
--------------------
August 23, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Anthony Spencer, federal prisoner # 28353-048,
challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition based on its determination that his claims were not
properly brought under § 2241. Spencer argues that his claims
attack the execution rather than the validity of his sentence.
This argument is facially without merit. The sentencing issues
he sought to raise challenge the validity rather than the
execution of his sentence, and the claims are inappropriate for
consideration under § 2241.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-30344
-2-
Spencer alternatively argues that his claims were proper
under § 2241 because relief under § 2255 was inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention as he cannot
meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion under
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The inability
to meet the AEDPA’s requirements for filing a successive § 2255
motion is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the
inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the remedy under
§ 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir.
2000). Accordingly, the district court did not err in
determining that Spencer’s claims could not be brought under
§ 2241.
Spencer’s appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous,
and is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Spencer is CAUTIONED
that the filing of future frivolous appeals will invite the
imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.