United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
REVISED JUNE 26, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 21, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10476
Conference Calendar
NATHANIEL HOWARD THOMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-880
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078,
appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which
he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and that the
Government had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Thomas
argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition.
This court reviews issues of law de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler,
253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10476
-2-
A petition filed under § 2241 which attacks errors that
occurred at trial or sentencing should be dismissed or construed
as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id.; Pack v. Yusuff, 218
F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). Thomas’s § 2241 petition
challenged his conviction, rather than attacking the manner in
which his sentence was being executed. Thomas has not shown that
the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211
F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion
or inability to meet successive-petition requirements does not
render § 2255 “inadequate”). Further, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to construe Thomas’s petition as a successive motion
under § 2255. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th
Cir. 1999). Thomas’s motion to supplement is DENIED. The
district court’s judgment dismissing Thomas’s petition is
AFFIRMED.