Dixon v. Jeter, No. 05-11276 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11276 Summary Calendar CASSEL DIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-181 -------------------Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cassel Dixon, federal prisoner # 12972-058, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his conviction for a drug conspiracy. The district court determined that Dixon s claims would be properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Dixon could not proceed under § 2255 s savings clause. Dixon, through counsel, asserts that his 210-month sentence exceeded the statutory maximum pursuant to United States v. Booker, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). He maintains that he is challenging the legality of his detention rather than his conviction because he should have been released from prison in 2000. Dixon also contends that he should be allowed to proceed under the § 2255 savings clause because Booker and Blakely are mere extensions of established law, because he is serving time for a nonexistent offense, and because his Booker and Blakely claims were foreclosed at the time of his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion. The district court properly determined that Dixon s claims should be raised in a § 2255 motion. 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). should be permitted to proceed under See Tolliver v. Dobre, Dixon s argument that he the savings clause is unavailing in light of this court s decision in Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
