Edward Raifsnider, federal prisoner # 10389-045, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his petition, Raifsnider, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to a 180-month term of imprisonment based on his prior violent felony convictions, attacked the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court determined that Raifsnider was challenging his conviction and his sentence and that Raifsnider could not proceed under § 2241 because his claim did not satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

Raifsnider argues that § 2241 can be used to attack the constitutionality of a criminal statute. Here, however, Raifsnider’s constitutional challenge is, in effect, an attack on his 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. A motion under § 2255 provides the primary means of “collaterally attacking a federal sentence.” Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000).

Raifsnider has not pointed to any retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that applies to his claim, nor has he shown that his claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when it should have been raised. Raifsnider has not met his burden to show that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir. 2005).

*618 Raifsnider requests that this court consider his claim pursuant to a writ of audita querela. Because Raifsnider’s claim regarding the constitutionality of the statute under which he was sentenced is not a “legal defense arising after judgment,” he cannot proceed under a writ of audita querela. See Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.