Summary
In Wade v. Werlich, 648 Fed.Appx. 425 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), a petitioner raised a Burrage claim via a § 2241 petition, and we held that he had not met his burden to show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
Summary of this case from Santillana v. UptonOpinion
No. 15-30494
05-16-2016
BRADFORD WADE, Petitioner-Appellant v. T.G. WERLICH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Pollock, Respondent-Appellee
Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:15-CV-178 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------
Bradford Wade, federal prisoner # 30736-034, has appealed the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 2009 conviction of conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin to a person under 21 years of age. Wade contends that he should be permitted to raise a claim based on Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Wade has not carried his burden of showing that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment is AFFIRMED.