
    Mark ANTHONY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan JOSLIN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-11429
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    
      Mark Anthony, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mark Anthony, federal prisoner # 05991-062, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anthony challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).

Because Anthony’s claims relate to errors that allegedly occurred at or prior to sentencing, his claims could not be asserted in a § 2241 petition. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir.2001); Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000). Moreover, Anthony has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the “savings clause” of § 2255. See ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 901, 904. Anthony’s argument that the restrictions on obtaining relief pursuant to § 2241 and the savings clause of § 2255 constitute a violation of the Suspension Clause is without merit. See id. at 901 n. 19.

As Anthony does not address the district court’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion under § 2255, any challenge to that finding has been abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). The district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     