United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10774
Conference Calendar
JERRY JOE TUBBLEBILLE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
D. JOSLIN,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-940
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Joe Tubblebille, federal prisoner # 21169-034, was
convicted in 1989 on seven counts stemming from a conspiracy to
manufacture and distribute amphetamine. He was sentenced to 272
months of imprisonment. Tubblebille filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
habeas corpus petition to challenge his conviction and sentence,
and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241
petition. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241
relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10774
-2-
He also argues that this court should issue a writ of mandamus
directing the district court that it has jurisdiction to
entertain his § 2241 petition.
Tubblebille has not shown that the district court erred in
determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed
as a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. See
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.
2001); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th
Cir. 1990); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th
Cir. 1987). Tubblebille’s contention that his claim under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), falls under § 2255’s
savings clause is incorrect. See Padilla v. United States, 416
F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
Tubblebille has not shown that he has a right to mandamus
relief. See In re Stone, 118 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997).
His petition for mandamus relief is denied.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.