IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 15, 2009
                                     No. 08-40794
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk




PATRICK ALEXANDER JONES,

                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN B. FOX,

                                                   Respondent-Appellee.




                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                                 No. 1:08-CV-167




Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*


       Patrick Jones, federal prisoner # 60763-080, was convicted of three charges
related to the possession and distribution of crack cocaine, and the district court

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                  No. 08-40794

sentenced him to life in prison. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence,
and his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was unsuccessful. Jones then filed a pur-
ported 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he raised claims related to his indict-
ment, trial, and sentence. The district court determined that Jones’s alleged
§ 2241 petition was actually a § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction.
The court thus dismissed the suit.
      Jones appeals that dismissal. He argues that the court abused its discre-
tion by denying his motion to amend. He also contends that he is entitled to
bring a § 2241 petition pursuant to the savings clause of § 2255, that the district
court misinterpreted Reyes-Requena v. United States, 

, 904 (5th Cir.
2001), and that the merits of his claims should be considered because he is actu-
ally innocent.
      Jones has shown no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion to
amend. See United States v. Saenz, 

, 356 (5th Cir. 2002). He also
has not shown that the district court erred by determining that his alleged
§ 2241 petition was best construed as a § 2255 motion. See Kinder v. Purdy, 

, 213 (5th Cir. 2000); Tolliver v. Dobre, 

, 877 (5th Cir.
2000); Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 

, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990);
Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 

, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, Jones
has shown no error in connection with the district court’s interpretation of bind-
ing caselaw, nor has he shown that he should be permitted to proceed under the
savings clause of § 2255. See 

.
      The judgment is AFFIRMED.




                                        2