IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11546
Summary Calendar
THEODORE A OSBORNE, SR
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-1064-P
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Theodore Osborne, Sr., federal prisoner # 98686-131, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in
which he raised challenges to the jurisdiction of the Parole
Commission to revoke his parole in 2001. On appeal he argues
that he was denied a hearing within five years of initially being
released on parole to determine whether parole should continue in
accordance with now repealed 18 U.S.C. § 4211(c)(1). He also
argues that the evidence at trial constructively amended his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-11546
-2-
bank-robbery charge in his indictment, that his attorney was
ineffective, and that there was a double jeopardy violation
resulting from his convictions of armed bank robbery and use of a
firearm during the offense.
Osborne’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
double jeopardy violation, and a constructive amendment to the
indictment arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
and he has not shown that he satisfied the requirements of the
savings clause to raise these claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
proceeding. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2000); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900, 904
(5th Cir. 2001). His claim that his parole ended five years
after he was initially released on parole because there was no
hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4211(c)(1) to determine
whether supervision should continue is without merit. See Penix
v. United States Parole Comm’n., 979 F.2d 386, 388-89 (5th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.