IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-60226 Summary Calendar _____________________

EDWARD LEE SHULTS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF,

Respondent-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:00-CV-27 _________________________________________________________________ September 21, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Lee Shults, federal prisoner # 20658-077, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of

petition. He argues

that he is actually innocent of the

(c) offense of

using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in

view of Bailey v. United States,

(1995). Shults has

not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241

petition because he is challenging the validity of his conviction,

rather than the manner in which his sentence is being executed.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. See Tolliver v. Dobre,

(5th Cir. 2000). Shults

has not shown that a

motion is inadequate or

ineffective for challenging the validity of his § 924(c)

conviction. See Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.,

(5th Cir. 1990). Shults has not shown that the district court

erred in holding that to the extent his petition should be

construed as a § 2255 motion, the district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider it. See § 2255; Solsona v. Warden,

(5th Cir. 1987)(a § 2255 motion must be filed in

the district court which imposed the sentence); Hooker v. Sivley,

(5th Cir. 1999)(a § 2241 petition must be filed

in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated).

For the first time on appeal, Shults argues that he is

actually innocent of the

offense of using

interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for

hire. Such a claim challenging the validity of Shults’ § 1958

conviction must be raised in a § 2255 proceeding, not in a § 2241

petition. See Tolliver,

.

A F F I R M E D.

2