¶1 Steve Stapleton appeals the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 210-month sentence for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Stapleton argued that he was actually innocent of being a career offender and that as a result, his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.
¶2 As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e).
¶3 Stapleton has not made such a showing because he has not established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Moreover, a claim of actual innocence of a career offender enhancement is not a claim of actual innocence of the crime of conviction and, thus, not the type of claim that warrants review under § 2241. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir.2000); see also Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27. Stapleton has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of § 2255(e).
¶4 The judgment of the district count is AFFIRMED.