Conrado Rodriguez v. Jason Jones, No. 12-10931 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10931 Document: 00512248915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10931 Summary Calendar May 21, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CONRADO ACOSTA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Conrado Acosta, Petitioner-Appellant v. JASON JONES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CV-143 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Conrado Acosta-Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 27173-198, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence of 252 months of imprisonment for his 2000 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Acosta-Rodriguez states that he is in custody for a non-existent career offender conviction. He asserts that he meets the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is actually * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-10931 Document: 00512248915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2013 No. 12-10931 innocent of being a career offender. He makes no attempt to argue how the remainder of his substantive claims satisfy the savings clause. Acosta-Rodriguez s claim based on an alleged error in applying the career offender sentencing enhancement may not be asserted in this § 2241 petition because it fails to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause in § 2255. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court properly dismissed Acosta-Rodriguez s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED. 2

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.