United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41077
Conference Calendar
JON RAYMOND CARRIGAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CV-76
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jon Raymond Carrigan, federal prisoner # 26552-177, has
filed a request for a certificate of probable cause, which is now
known as a certificate of appealability (COA), to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Carrigan challenges his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to
possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture
methamphetamine. The district court dismissed the petition
because Carrigan did not qualify to proceed under the “savings
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41077
-2-
clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Carrigan is a federal
prisoner seeking to proceed under § 2241, he is not required to
obtain a COA. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Carrigan does not address the basis for the district court’s
conclusion that his § 2241 petition should be dismissed.
Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se
litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Carrigan
has not addressed the basis for the district court’s dismissal of
his § 2241 petition, he has abandoned any argument that the
district court erred when it dismissed his § 2241 petition for
lack of jurisdiction. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.