Benjamin Tillman, federal inmate # 04060-017, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Because Tillman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the legality of his conviction, Tillman was required to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an inadequate or ineffective remedy. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). “[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which established 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).

To bring his claim under the “savings clause,” Tillman argues that he could not have brought the instant claim that the sentencing court was without jurisdiction to sentence him until 1998, when the Eleventh Circuit issued Harris v. United States, 149 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998). Harris, however, is not a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that Tillman may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. Because Tillman fails to identify any authority demonstrating that he was convicted of a non-existent offense, his jurisdictional challenge to his conviction fails to satisfy the first prong of the Reyes-Requena test. The district court’s dismissal of Tillman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is therefore AFFIRMED.