Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Sheila Trahan

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 10, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-20701
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SHEILA TRAHAN
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
4:06-CV-2567
4-01-CR-873
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sheila Trahan, federal prisoner # 13730-179, appeals the dismissal of her
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Trahan pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm in December 2002 and she was sentenced to a 120-month term of
imprisonment. In a previous proceeding, the district court denied Trahan’s
request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-20701
2
Trahan argues that she is entitled to a certificate of appealability (COA)
on several claims that attack her conviction and her sentence. Because Trahan
is proceeding under § 2241, however, she is not required to obtain a COA in
order to appeal the district court’s judgment. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary
Beaumont, Tx., 305 F.3d 343, 345 (5th Cir. 2002); Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-
82 (5th Cir. 1997).
Trahan’s § 2241-denominated petition raised an error that allegedly
occurred at her sentencing. Therefore, the petition must be construed as
sounding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless Trahan establishes that her claim falls
under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d
378, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Trahan has not shown that the remedy
provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of her
detention, she has not shown that she is entitled to bring a § 2241 petition under
the savings clause of § 2255. See id. at 382; Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877
(5th Cir. 2000).
Trahan had previously been denied relief under § 2255 and she had not
obtained authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. The district
court therefore did not err in determining that it could not consider Trahan’s
filing, which it properly construed as a § 2255 motion, because it was an
unauthorized successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --