George Webber v. Rebecca Tamez, (5th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 11-10366

Linked as:

Text

Case: 11-10366 Document: 00511710291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2011

No. 11-10366

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

GEORGE L. WEBBER,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

REBECCA TAMEZ, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-511

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* George Webber, federal prisoner # 14047-045, appeals the dismissal of his 28U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence of 192 months of imprisonment for his 2002 conviction for distribution of cocaine base. Webber contends that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because his prior state drug offenses were not drug trafficking offenses under § 4B1.2. He asserts that he meets the requirements of the savings clause of 28U.S.C. § 2255 because he is actually innocent of being * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10366 Document: 00511710291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2011 a career offender under § 4B1.1 according to Begay v. United States, 553 U.S.

137 (2008).

Webber’s claim based on an alleged error in applying a sentencing enhancement may not be asserted in this § 2241 petition because it fails to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause in § 2255. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court properly dismissed Webber’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the motion for extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.