
    Salvatore COTTONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, FCI-Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-10723
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2007.
    Salvatore Cottone, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Salvatore Cottone, federal prisoner #23593-083, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, wherein he challenged the restitution ordered by the sentencing court following his convictions for RICO violations, retaliation against an informant, and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Specifically, Cottone complained that the restitution order violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) , and United States v. Booker, 548 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) .

The district court found that Cottone could not rely on § 2241 to challenge the legality of his sentence because he failed to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s savings clause. On appeal, Cottone argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition because the Supreme Court’s decision in Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353,125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005), in conjunction with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, violates the Suspension Clause.

We review “de novo a district court’s dismissal of a section 2241 petition on the pleadings.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.2000). The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Cottone’s § 2241 petition because his contentions regarding restitution did not satisfy the “in custody” requirement of § 2241. See § 2241(c); United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 885 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, we have held that claims based on Blakely and Booker do not satisfy the savings clause of § 2255. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005).

The district court’s judgment dismissing Cottone’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED, and its motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. 
      
       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.
     