Saifullah Ranjha v. Michael Carvajal, No. 12-40133 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-40133 Document: 00512046060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-40133 Summary Calendar November 7, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SAIFULLAH ANJUM RANJHA, also known as Salifullah Anjum Ranjha, Petitioner-Appellant v. MICHAEL D. CARVAJAL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CV-168 Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Saifullah Anjum Ranjha, federal prisoner # 43091-037, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and one count of terrorist financing. Ranjha sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, maintaining he was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of the Supreme Court s decisions in Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008), and Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009). The district court ruled Ranjha could not proceed under § 2241 because his claims did not satisfy the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40133 Document: 00512046060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 No. 12-40133 requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and dismissed his § 2241 petition. Section 2255 relief is the remedy for errors that occurred at or prior to sentencing. Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). A § 2241 petition raising errors that occurr[ed] at trial or sentencing is properly construed [as arising] under § 2255. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Ranjha challenges the legality of his conviction and sentence, his claims must be presented under § 2255. Cox, 911 F.2d at 1113. If a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner s] detention, he may be permitted to pursue a claim pursuant to § 2241 under § 2255 s savings clause. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). The savings clause applies to any claim that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and 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. Id. at 904. Ranjha has not made the requisite showing because his claims based on Regalado Cuellar and Flores could have been raised in his initial § 2255 motion filed on May 22, 2009. Further, his claim that he cannot obtain relief through § 2255 because his motions to supplement and amend his initial § 2255 motion were denied as untimely, does not render relief under § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 878. Therefore, Ranjha has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2255's savings clause. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing his § 2241 petition is 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.
