Case ID: f-appx_174/html/0784-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph LOVETT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John L. LAMANNA, Warden, FCI Edgefield, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 06-6089.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2006.
    Decided: April 10, 2006.
    Joseph Lovett, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Lovett filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), claiming that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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) . A petitioner may challenge his sentence under § 2241 only if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000). Lovett has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective as discussed in Jones, so he is not entitled to proceed under § 2241. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief without prejudice. Furthermore, we affirm the district court’s order denying Lovett’s motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED