Willie Frank King, federal prisoner #29510-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 21 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his convictions for several drug-related crimes and resulting 328-month sentence. In his petition, King alleged that he was denied his counsel of choice, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights as articulated in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006). King argues that the district court erred in determining that he had not met the requirements for proceeding under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

To challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241 petition, King must affirmatively show that the remedy under § 2255 would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). This requires him to make a showing of both actual innocence and retroactivity. Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 903-04. Specifically, he must establish that his claim (1) “is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) “was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id. at 904.

King devotes his brief to the argument that Gonzalez-Lopez should apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. He makes no argument that he is actually innocent. Moreover, Gonzalez-Lopez does not establish that his convictions are for nonexistent offenses. See 548 U.S. at 151-52, 126 S.Ct. 2557. Therefore, we do not reach the question whether Gonzalez-Lopez is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review because King cannot meet his burden regardless. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. See § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 897-98. King is CAUTIONED that future attempts to circumvent the successive-motion requirements of § 2255 will invite the imposition of sanctions.