IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30770
Summary Calendar
CLARENCE ROBINSON, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-1892
--------------------
February 10, 2003
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence Robinson, Jr., a federal prisoner (# 02476-095),
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
habeas corpus petition. Robinson pleaded guilty in 1993 to
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was sentenced to
60 months in prison. Robinson argues that the district court
erred in dismissing his petition as an abuse of the writ and in
concluding that he had not shown that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not
provide an “inadequate” and “ineffective” postconviction remedy.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30770
-2-
The district court concluded that Robinson’s claims were not
properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2255 provides
the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction
and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.
2000). A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is not a “substitute” for a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a “[§] 2241 petition that
seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either
be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion.” Pack
v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
Although Robinson could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he
demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was “inadequate or
ineffective” under the latter statute’s “savings clause,”
Robinson has failed to make such a showing. See Reyes-Requena
v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001) (to proceed
under “savings clause,” petitioner must show that (1) his claims
are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision
which establishes that he may have been convicted of a
nonexistent offense, and (2) his claims were foreclosed by
circuit law at the time when the claims should have been raised
in his trial, appeal, or first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.