United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40336
Conference Calendar
JULIUS WARNER MARACALIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
MARVIN D. MORRISON, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-631
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julius Warner Maracalin, federal prisoner # 02617-095,
pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy to possess
cocaine base with intent to distribute and distribution of
cocaine base and was sentenced to 235 months of imprisonment.
Maracalin challenges his underlying conviction and sentence by
arguing that: (1) he was not advised of the nature of charges
against him during the guilty-plea colloquy in violation of FED.
R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1); (2) he was arrested pursuant to a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40336
-2-
non-existent indictment and thus the prosecutor, arresting
officers, and the court committed fraud; (3) he was sentenced in
violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (4) his indictment should be
dismissed because it failed to allege that he was being charged
pursuant to the penalty provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C);
(5) the use of judicially-found facts in determining his sentence
violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005); (6) Apprendi applies retroactively to his
case; and (7) his indictment should be dismissed because it
failed to charge a drug quantity.
Although Maracalin seeks to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he has not
shown that the remedy available under § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893,
904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2000). To the extent Maracalin argues that the Booker or
Apprendi lines of authority apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review and entitle him to file a § 2241 petition, his
argument is unavailing in light of Padilla v. United States, 416
F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.