Case: 11-31176 Document: 00511934806 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 26, 2012
No. 11-31176
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLENN METZ, Also Known as Shorty, Also Known as Jeeper,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 2:11-CV-1698
Before SMITH, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glenn Metz, federal prisoner # 28118-048, is serving a life sentence and
has convictions of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”) and pos-
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-31176 Document: 00511934806 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
No. 11-31176
sessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he sued to
challenge his convictions and sentence, and the district court dismissed the suit
after determining that it should be construed as an unauthorized, successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
This court is now presented with Metz’s request for a certificate of appeal-
ability (“COA”), but one is not needed, because he sought relief under § 2241. See
Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). The motion for a
COA is DENIED as unnecessary.
Because Metz’s claims do not relate to the execution of his sentence, the
district court did not err by recharacterizing his putative § 2241 petition as a
§ 2255 motion. See id.; Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000).
Insofar as Metz argues that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings
clause of § 2255 because of his reliance on DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct.
2225 (2011), and Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999), that argu-
ment is unavailing, because those decisions do not show that he was convicted
of a nonexistent offense. See Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1062 (2012); Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 382 (5th
Cir. 2003); Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir. 2001); § 2255(e)
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2