John Cockerham, Jr. v. J. Willi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50172 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 02/06/2017 [16-50172]

Case: 16-50172

Document: 00513801455

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/16/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50172
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit

FILED
December 16, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JOHN LEE COCKERHAM, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
J. S. WILLIS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-382
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

John Lee Cockerham, Jr., federal prisoner # 97305-180, appeals the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed to challenge his
convictions of conspiring to commit an offense against or defraud the United
States or an agency thereof, bribery, and conspiring to commit money
laundering. Where, as here, a district court has dismissed a § 2241 petition on

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50172

Document: 00513801455

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/16/2016

No. 16-50172
the pleadings, we review the dismissal de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209,
212 (5th Cir. 2000).
Cockerham claims that, due to a defect in his indictment, the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus his convictions are invalid.
He asserts that he should be allowed to raise the purported jurisdictional
defect in a § 2241 petition.
Because Cockerham’s § 2241 petition challenges alleged errors that
occurred prior to sentencing, it is properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion.

See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody
resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the
petitioner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d
827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see § 2255(e).

Cockerham, however, has not

established that his claim of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, predicated
on allegations of a defective indictment, either is based upon a retroactive
Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent
offense or was foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, appeal, or first
§ 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.
2001). He has therefore failed to show reversible error on the part of the
district court. See id.
AFFIRMED.

2