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. 06-30470
Summary Calendar
ALVIN B TRUESDALE
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
FREDERICK MENIFEE, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY POLLOCK, EDWARD F
REILLY, JR
Respondents - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:05-CV-1308
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alvin B. Truesdale, federal inmate # 09431-058, appeals the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application. He is serving a
life sentence imposed for convictions for drug-trafficking,
firearms crimes, and maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise
(CCE). Truesdale challenged the defendants’ determination that
he is ineligible for parole because his CCE offense continued
past the November 1, 1987, effective date of the Sentencing
Reform Act (SRA) that abolished parole.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30470
-2-
Truesdale contends that the district court’s reasons for
denying a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 59 were invalid, that the
judgment was not “final” because all his arguments were not
addressed and the defendants did not answer, that the district
court failed to review the magistrate judge’s recommendation de
novo, and that dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a
claim was improper without an answer and hearing. If we assume,
as the district court held, that these claims are cognizable
under § 2241, they fail because Truesdale alleges no plausible
facts to challenge the district court’s critical determination
that the CCE offense continued past the effective date of the
SRA.
Truesdale also contends that he received ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel and that he is actually innocent
due to insufficient or unreliable evidence of a CCE or a firearm
offense. These contentions directly challenge his conviction and
are not cognizable under § 2241 because Truesdale cannot show
that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is “inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255; see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904
(5th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Truesdale has moved for recalculation of his sentence, for a
telephone or video conference, to hold the appeal in abeyance,
and for appointment of counsel. These motions are denied.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.