Case Name: Larry Darvell HENRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard B. IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-12
Citations: 588 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 13-56304
Parties: Larry Darvell HENRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard B. IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
Larry Darvell HENRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard B. IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-56304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2014.
Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
Larry Darvell Henricks, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dorothy C. Kim, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Sean Peterson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Larry Darvell Hen-ricks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
Henricks contends that he is actually innocent under Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), of using and/or carrying a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and he therefore should be allowed to proceed with his section 2241 petition under the "escape hatch" of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Henricks cannot establish that he has not had an "unobstructed procedural shot" at presenting this claim because he could have raised it in a timely section 2255 motion. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Hen-ricks's claim for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 961-62. Contrary to Henricks's contention, McQuiggin v. Perkins, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013), does not compel a different result.
We do not consider Henricks's claim that his counsel on state direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective because this claim is raised for the first time on appeal. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.