Case Name: Tito Lamont ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-08
Citations: 707 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 15-7742
Parties: Tito Lamont ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: . Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
Tito Lamont ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7742
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2017
Decided: January 8, 2018
Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
. Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tito Lamont Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. §. 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Anderson relies on the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have "not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence." United States v. Poole, 581 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, Anderson fails 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).
We thus conclude that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Anderson's § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02061-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). We grant Anderson leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We 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