Dixon v. Jeter

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
December 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-11276
Summary Calendar
CASSEL DIXON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CV-181
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cassel Dixon, federal prisoner # 12972-058, appeals from the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his
conviction for a drug conspiracy. The district court determined
that Dixon’s claims would be properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion and that Dixon could not proceed under § 2255’s savings
clause.
Dixon, through counsel, asserts that his 210-month sentence
exceeded the statutory maximum pursuant to United States v. Booker,

-- 1 of 2 --

543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). He maintains that he is challenging the legality of his
detention rather than his conviction because he should have been
released from prison in 2000. Dixon also contends that he should
be allowed to proceed under the § 2255 savings clause because
Booker and Blakely are mere extensions of established law, because
he is serving time for a nonexistent offense, and because his
Booker and Blakely claims were foreclosed at the time of his direct
appeal and first § 2255 motion.
The district court properly determined that Dixon’s claims
should be raised in a § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre,
211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Dixon’s argument that he
should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause is
unavailing in light of this court’s decision in Padilla v. United
States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --