Case: 23-40639 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-40639 August 23, 2024 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Earl Francis Hart, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Charles Daniels, Warden, USP Beaumont, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:23-CV-165 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Earl Francis Hart, federal prisoner # 27106-038, appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute Oxycodone, attempted possession with intent to distribute Oxycodone, possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, and using and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-40639 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2024

No. 23-40639

a drug trafficking crime. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Jeffrey v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).

To collaterally challenge his convictions under § 2241, Hart must satisfy the “‘saving clause’” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) by showing that “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). He has abandoned any argument that he has satisfied the savings clause by failing to brief it before this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent Hart contends that actual innocence is an exception to the savings clause, he has not established that actual innocence provides a gateway for review of claims raised in a § 2241 petition. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315 (1995).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hart’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.