
    Nha Khiem TRAN, also known as Tony Tran, also known as Larry Tran, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Suzanne HASTINGS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-41268.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: April 21, 2004.
    
      Nha Kiem Tran, #48793-079, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
    Allen Harvey Hurst, Assistant US Attorney, Tyler, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    ’ Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nha Khiem Tran, federal prisoner #48793-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methylenedioxy amphetamine (MDA), for which he received a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. Relying on United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.2000), Tran argues that his indictment contained a jurisdictional defect because it did not charge the element of the drug quantity involved in the offense. He argues that because he has no remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he is entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may be utilized by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence if he can satisfy the mandate of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

Although on appeal Tran relies on Doggett to support his position, in the district court, he relied on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which was the basis for the Doggett decision.

Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the requirements for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1241, 123 S.Ct. 1374, 155 L.Ed.2d 212 (2003). Therefore, Tran’s claims do not fall within the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court’s judgment dismissing the petition 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.
     