United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 27, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10155
Summary Calendar
TOMMY HAYNES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution - Fort
Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CV-6
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Haynes, federal prisoner # 25197-177, pleaded guilty
to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
amphetamine and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment to be
followed by three years of supervised release. Haynes challenges
his underlying conviction and sentence, arguing that the district
court erred by denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in that it
failed to perform “an actual innocence analysis” which would have
shown that he has been incarcerated for an offense to which he
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10155
-2-
neither pleaded guilty nor was found guilty by a jury. Haynes
also asserts that he is entitled to proceed under the savings
clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as he is actually innocent of the
offense of which he was convicted. Haynes seeks remand to the
district court for an evidentiary hearing or resentencing.
Although Haynes 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); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). To the
extent Haynes argues that the United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005), 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). Haynes is hereby warned that submitting
repetitive or frivolous filings in the future will invite the
imposition of sanctions.
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.