United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10470
Summary Calendar
CLIFTON CARTER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
C. O. JETER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-644
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clifton Carter, a federal prisoner (# 01306-063), appeals
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging
his 292-month prison sentence imposed for his 1991 jury trial
convictions of drug-trafficking offenses. Jones contends that
his sentence is unconstitutional in light of United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), because it was based on facts that were not
proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10470
-2-
Because Carter challenges errors that occurred at
sentencing, the claim may not be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27
(5th Cir. 2005). Insofar as he has suggested that he is entitled
to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the “savings clause”
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, because relief under the latter section is
“inadequate or ineffective,” such suggestion is unavailing. Id.
at 427.
Carter has filed several collateral challenges to his
sentence, including at least two prior 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions
that were dismissed for failure to satisfy the savings clause of
28 U.S.C. § 2255. His pro se pleadings reflect a level of
sophistication that indicates that he is well aware that his
current 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition comes no closer to satisfying
those criteria. Carter’s appeal is without arguable merit and is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Carter is hereby WARNED that
any future frivolous pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging
this sentence will invite the imposition of sanctions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.