Jefferson v. Haro

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30082
Conference Calendar
LORENZO JEFFERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. HARO,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-1703
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Jefferson, federal prisoner # 08786-035, has
appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing his application
for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his March 28, 1995,
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance. Jefferson contends that he should be
permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 under the Savings
Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is innocent in light of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Jefferson’s

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30082
-2-
argument is foreclosed by Wesson v. United States Penitentiary
Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003).
Previously, this court refused to permit Jefferson to file a
second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b). Jefferson contends that the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) violates his rights
under the Ex Post Facto Clause and that the AEDPA violates the
Suspension Clause. We need not consider these issues because
they have been raised for the first time on appeal, see Leverette
v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), and
because they are not pertinent to the question whether Jefferson
should be permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
issues are without merit, in any event. See Felker v. Turpin,
518 U.S. 651, 663-64 (1996); see also Wesson, 305 F.3d at 347;
Graham v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 762, 786 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Jefferson’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --