Daniel Moore v. Rodney Chandler


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10030 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: CH , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 09/26/2014 [14-10030]

Download PDF
Case: 14-10030 Document: 00512723073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-10030 Summary Calendar FILED August 5, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DANIEL PATRICK MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN RODNEY CHANDLER, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-682 Before WIENER, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Patrick Moore, federal prisoner # 43561-177, appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. In his § 2241 petition, he contended that he was actually innocent of his sentence because the Government failed to allege and prove the drug quantity that subjected him to a higher statutory penalty. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-10030 Document: 00512723073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 No. 14-10030 We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Moore sought to attack the manner in which his sentence was determined, he had to meet the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) to raise his claims in a § 2241 petition. See id. at 451-52; Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000). Moore does not address or challenge the district court’s determination that his claims were not cognizable in a § 2241 petition and offers no argument that his claims fall within the savings clause of § 2255(e). See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001)(setting forth requirements to meet savings clause). Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate any error and, in effect, has abandoned any challenge to the basis of the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition. See McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?