Case: 14-14463     Date Filed: 03/10/2015   Page: 1 of 2


                                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]



               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                          ________________________

                                 No. 14-14463
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                           ________________________

                       D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-02447-SCJ



STEPHEN TERRY BRITT,

                                                                Petitioner-Appellant,

                                       versus

WARDEN, USP ATLANTA,

                                                              Respondent-Appellee.

                           ________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Georgia
                         ________________________

                                 (March 10, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

      Stephen Terry Britt appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Having already litigated a 28
              Case: 14-14463     Date Filed: 03/10/2015    Page: 2 of 2


U.S.C. § 2255 petition, Britt now relies on the savings clause of § 2255(e). The

savings clause is a jurisdictional provision, Williams v. Warden, 

,

1340 (11th Cir. 2013), so Britt bears the burden of showing that § 2255 is

“inadequate or ineffective” before the district court has jurisdiction to review his

§ 2241 petition, see Turner v. Warden, 

, 1333 (11th Cir. 2013).

      To meet that burden, Britt must show that: (1) his claim is based on a

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision; (2) the holding of that Supreme

Court decision establishes that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense; and (3)

circuit law squarely foreclosed his claim at the time it otherwise should have been

raised. Wofford v. Scott, 

, 1244 (11th Cir. 1999). Britt has not

claimed that he is relying on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision.

See 

court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider his arguments. See

–40.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2