UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6563

TADD ERROL VASSELL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary Hazelton , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv - 00009

- FPS )

Submitted : November 29, 2018 Decided: December 18, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Grace E. Hurney, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia ; Bryan S. Gowdy, CREED & GOWDY, P.A., Jacksonvill e, Florida, for Appellant. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D.C.; G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OF FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tadd Errol Vassell appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dis miss Vassell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition against Terry O’Brien, the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Haze l ton, West Virginia. In his petition, Vassell asserted that, under Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), and Graham v. Flo rida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010), his mandatory life

- without

- parole
sentence is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it was imposed for a conspiracy he entered when he was a juvenile. After conducting a de novo review, we agree with the district court that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is not rendered inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Vassell’s sentence and, thus, Vassell may not subvert the limitations on successive habeas petitions by raising his Graham claim in a § 2241 petition

. See United
St ates v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 428

- 29 (4th Cir. 2018) ( setting forth test to apply to prisoners’ § 2241 challeng es to sentences ) , pet. for cert. filed , __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Oct. 4, 2018) (No. 18

- 420)

. * We have considered Vassell’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Vassell v.

* Prior to Wheeler , this c ourt had not extended the reach of the savings clause to petitioners challenging only their sentence. See United States v. Poole , 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). Although both the magistrate judge and the district court mentioned this pre

- Wheeler limitation, neither relied solely on pre

- Wheeler caselaw forbidding § 2241 sentencing challenges to dispose of Vassell’s petition. We thus find no reversible error. See United States v. Landersman , 886 F.3d 393, 413 (4th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that an e rror is harmless if the court can “find that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error”); cf

. United States v. Riley , 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (recognizing that this c ourt may affirm a district court’s judgment “on any grounds apparent fro m the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 273 (2017).3 O’Brien , No. 5:17

- cv - 00009

- FPS (N.D.W. Va. Mar

. 19, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED