U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2024

Cabello v. Hijar

Cabello v. Hijar
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 30, 2024

Cabello v. Hijar

Opinion

Case: 24-50407 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50407 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 30, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Archie Cabello, Clerk Petitioner—Appellant, versus Sandra Hijar, Warden, La Tuna Federal Prison, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-116 ______________________________ Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Archie Cabello, federal prisoner #73097-065, appeals the dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions of conspiracy to commit bank larceny, to possess stolen bank funds, and to make false statements on credit applications; pos- session of stolen bank funds; making false statements in a credit card appli- _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50407 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2024

No. 24-50407

cation; filing a false income tax return; and conspiracy to launder money. We review the dismissal of the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction de novo. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000).

To challenge his conviction collaterally under § 2241, Cabello must satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) by showing that “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sen- tencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). Because Cabello has failed to make that showing, the district court correctly dismissed his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451–52. Cabel- lo’s theory that he does not have to satisfy the savings clause because the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction is unavailing because § 2255(a) expressly provides that a prisoner raising such a claim may file a motion in “the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence” under § 2255.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.