Darryl Wayne Hartfield, federal prisoner # 23121-077, appeals the district court’s[*358] dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the enhancement of his sentence based on prior burglary and attempted burglary convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Hartfield argues that he is actually innocent of the sentence enhancement because his prior attempted burglary conviction is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(e) and § 4B1.1 and further argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the enhancement of his sentence.

In order to satisfy the criteria of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause, Hartfield must show that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claim was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when it should have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in an initial § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Hartfield has not made the requisite showing. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Hart-field’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.