
    Steve STAPLETON, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-41399
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 24, 2012.
    Steve Stapleton, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    
      Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Steve Stapleton appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 210-month sentence for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Stapleton argued that he was actually innocent of being a career offender and that as a result, his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.

As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e).

Stapleton has not made such a showing because he has not established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Moreover, a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the crime of conviction and, thus, not the type of claim that warrants review under § 2241. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir.2000); see also Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27. Stapleton has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e).

The judgment of the district count is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     