Riddick v. Miles

Full title: Harry Lee RIDDICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard D. MILES, Warden…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 17, 2007

225 F. App'x 231 (5th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-40151 Conference Calendar.

April 17, 2007.

Harry Lee Riddick, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, USDC No. 1:05-CV-295.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Harry Lee Riddick, federal prisoner #48116-060, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Riddick challenges his conviction of operating a continuing criminal enterprise, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine in or near a school, and distribution of cocaine.

Riddick seeks relief pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); and Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999). Riddick's Booker and Blakely claims do not fall under the "savings clause" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255; he thus may not pursue relief under § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005). Riddick's appellate brief indicates that he knew about Richardson before he filed his § 2255 motion in 2001; he therefore could have raised his Richardson issues in that motion and may not pursue them in a § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.