Case Name: Daryl Deon EVERETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-31
Citations: 699 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 15-7287
Parties: Daryl Deon EVERETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Daryl Deon EVERETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7287
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 31, 2017
Patrick L. Bryant, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard J. Colgan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Deon Everett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Everett has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked jurisdiction over Everett's petition, Rice, 617 F.3d at 807, and we therefore modify its orders, Everett v. Wilson, No. 2:13-cv-00524-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. May 28 & June 16, 2015), to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). We deny Everett's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED