Marcos GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steve MORRIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 214 F. App'x 394

PER CURIAM: Marcos Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 65613-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Gonzalez was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of Texas in 1995 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for attempting to conduct a financial transaction with the proceeds of an unlawful activity. Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The errors asserted by Gonzalez may not be raised in a

section 2241 petition unless they arise under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). Because Gonzalez’s claim is not based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense, see Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001), the district court properly dismissed his

section 2241 petition. See Padilla, 416 F.3d at 427. Alternatively, Gonzalez seeks authorization to file a successive

section 2255 motion. The district court did not transfer this case to this court for a determination whether a successive

section 2255 motion should be allowed. See In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 364-65 (5th Cir.1997). We decline to construe Gonzalez’s appeal from the dismissal of his

section 2241 petition in the alternative as a motion for authorization to file a successive

section 2255 application. Finally, Gonzalez argues that the denial of relief would amount to an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, as prohibited by U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 2. We have previously rejected that argument. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 346-47 (5th Cir.2002). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.