
    John Lee COCKERHAM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. J. S. WILLIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 16-50172 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/16/2016
    John Lee Cockerham, Jr., Pro Se
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Lee Cockerham, Jr., federal prisoner # 97305-180, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed to challenge his convictions of conspiring to commit an offense against or defraud the United States or an agency thereof, bribery, and conspiring to commit money laundering. Where, as here, a district court has dismissed a § 2241 petition on the pleadings, we review the dismissal de novo. Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000).

Cockerham claims that, due to a defect in his indictment, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus his convictions are invalid. He asserts that he should be allowed to raise the purported jurisdictional defect in a § 2241 petition.

Because Coekerham’s § 2241 petition challenges alleged errors that occurred prior to sentencing, it is properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, a § 2241 petition that attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained if the petitioner shows that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001); see § 2255(e). Cockerham, however, has not established that his claim of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, predicated on allegations of a defective indictment, either is based upon a retroactive Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense or was foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). He has therefore failed to show reversible error on the part of the district court. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set fortli in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     