United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 23, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10157
Conference Calendar
GEORGE D. FARQUHAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
K.J. WENDT, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CV-1873-L
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George D. Farquhar, federal prisoner # 28074-077, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
challenging his conviction for mail fraud. He argues that he
is entitled to proceed pursuant to § 2241 because the 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 remedy is inadequate given that his claims could not be
raised in a successive § 2255 motion and, further, because Neder
v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) establishes that he was
convicted of a nonexistent offense.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10157
-2-
A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to
meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion,
does not make the § 2255 remedy inadequate, however. See
Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000).
Additionally, Farquhar cannot show that his claims were
foreclosed at the time of his § 2255 motion because Neder was
decided before that filing. See Reyes-Requena v. United States,
243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001); Neder, 527 U.S. at 1.
Farquhar therefore has not shown the § 2255 remedy inadequate,
and he cannot proceed pursuant to § 2241.
AFFIRMED.