Court Opinion

ID: 9882048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:07.331181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.154225
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6488      Doc: 8         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6488

        DEMETRIOS DONELL MCNEILL,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN R. RAMOS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02134-M-RJ)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Demetrios Donell McNeill, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6488      Doc: 8        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Demetrios Donell McNeill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and

        judgment dismissing without prejudice McNeill’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he

        sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255. The Supreme Court has held “that § 2255(e)’s savings clause does not permit a

        prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent [the

        Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996]’s restrictions on second or

        successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857,

        1864 (2023). Thus, McNeill may not now assert that he is actually innocent of his 18

        U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction due to an alleged change in the statutory interpretation of the

        statute. We also conclude that the district court did not err in finding that McNeill was

        ineligible for sentencing time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii). Accordingly,

        We affirm the district court’s order and judgment. McNeill v. Ramos, No. 5:22-hc-02134-

        M-RJ (E.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2023). 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

                                                    2