
    Stanley Douglas POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-40568
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 2, 2010.
    Stanley Douglas Powell, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Stanley Douglas Powell, federal prisoner # 18209-013, is serving a 188-month sentence in Beaumont, Texas, after a jury convicted him of four counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He appeals the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition asserting that the District of Colorado was without jurisdiction to convict him, that he is actually innocent, and that he has been the victim of corruption in the judicial system. Powell previously has filed two motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and one § 2241 petition in the District of Colorado, along with a § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The district court correctly determined that Powell’s claims are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. Powell may challenge his conviction under § 2241 only if he establishes that “the remedy [under § 2255] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); see Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001)). Powell does not rely upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he is actually innocent. Thus, he fails to demonstrate that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31.

We caution Powell that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, Powell’s motion to expedite the appeal is DENIED, and a SANCTION WARNING IS ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     