Torres v. Chandler

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40334
Conference Calendar
ROMEL W. TORRES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-179
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Romel W. Torres, federal prisoner # 60659-079, appeals from
the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition. Torres challenged his 1994 convictions for,
inter alia, participating in a continuing criminal enterprise,
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, unlawful use of
a communications facility, conspiracy to engage in money
laundering, and money laundering.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40334
-2-
Torres argues that he was convicted and sentenced in
violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and
that the district court erred in determining that this claim did
not meet the requirements of the savings clause. This court has
recently held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases
on collateral review and that an Apprendi claim does not satisfy
the requirements for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the
savings clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX,
305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2002).
We do not consider Torres’ argument that he is entitled to
relief under Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999),
because it is raised for the first time in his reply brief. See
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) (scope of
reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons all issues not
raised and argued in initial brief on appeal); Knighten
v. Commissioner, 702 F.2d 59, 60 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1983) (issue may
not be raised for first time in reply brief, even by a pro se
appellant). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --