Daniel Moore v. Rodney Chandler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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