Dill v. USA, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
February 23, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30817
Conference Calendar
PETE DILL, also known as Darryl Tucker,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROBERT TAPIA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:05-CV-328
--------------------
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pete Dill, federal prisoner # 50934-066, appeals from the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his
conviction and sentence for bank robbery for lack of
jurisdiction. Dill argues that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is
inadequate to raise his jurisdictional challenge.
Dill’s jurisdictional argument, however, challenges his
conviction and is therefore the type of claim reserved for § 2255
proceedings. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-30817
-2-
2000). Dill has not shown that the remedy provided under § 2255
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901
(5th Cir. 2001). He therefore cannot proceed under § 2241, and
the district court, which was not Dill’s sentencing court, did
not err in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. See
Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --