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. 05-11298
Conference Calendar
WILLIE JAMES POLLEY,
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. 4:05-CV-458
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie James Polley, federal prisoner # 05805-078, was
convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was
sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. Polley challenges his
underlying conviction and sentence by arguing: (1) that he is
entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 is inadequate to raise claims that his conviction and
sentence were illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005); (2) that he is entitled to seek relief under the All
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11298
-2-
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); (3) that he is entitled to relief
because his indictment was defective in light of Booker; (4) that
this defect prevented the district court from having jurisdiction
over Polley; and (5) that, in light of Booker, he was actually
innocent of the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced.
Although Polley seeks to proceed under § 2241 pursuant to
the savings clause of § 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). To the extent Polley argues that the Booker or Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 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).
“[T]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to
issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute. Where a
statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it
is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is
controlling.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429
(1996) (quotation marks omitted). Because § 2255 provides the
primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction and
sentence, see Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 901, the All Writs Act
is not applicable to Polley’s petition.
Polley’s argument that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because of a defect in the indictment is unavailing.
No. 05-11298
-3-
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction.
See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630-31 (2002); United
States v. Jacquez-Beltran, 326 F.3d 661, 662 (5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.