Court Opinion

ID: 9911442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:55.816886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:26.612195
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7440      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7440

        DAVID CAIN, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN STREEVAL,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:21-cv-00338-TTC-RSB)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Cain, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7440      Doc: 15        Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              David Cain, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition and denying reconsideration. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v.

        Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition

        to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal conviction or sentence), we

        conclude that Cain cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s orders. Cain v. Streeval, No. 7:21-cv-00338-TTC-RSB (W.D. Va. July

        28, 2022; Oct. 17, 2022). We deny Cain’s motion to appoint counsel. 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