George D. Farquhar, federal prisoner #28074-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction for mail fraud. He argues that he is entitled to proceed pursuant to § 2241 because the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is inadequate given that his claims could not be raised in a successive § 2255 motion and, further, because Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) establishes that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense.

A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to meet the requirements for filing a successive § 2255 motion, does not make the § 2255 remedy inadequate, however. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, Farquhar cannot show that his claims were foreclosed at the time of his § 2255 motion because Neder was decided before that filing. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001); Neder, 527 U.S. at 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827. Farquhar therefore has not shown the § 2255 remedy inadequate, and he cannot proceed pursuant to § 2241.

AFFIRMED.