Court Opinion

ID: 9947019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:20.096938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.971834
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6060      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6060

        JIHAD GARRETT,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00202-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jihad Garrett, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6060      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jihad Garrett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and motion for reconsideration in which he sought to challenge

        his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).

        In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023),

        we conclude that Garrett may not pursue his challenges in a § 2241 petition. Because the

        district court lacked jurisdiction over Garrett’s petition, see Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802,

        807-08 (4th Cir. 2010), we modify the district court’s orders to reflect dismissal without

        prejudice of the § 2241 claims, see Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (recognizing that dismissal based on “defect in subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one

        without prejudice” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and affirm the orders as modified,

        see 28 U.S.C. § 2106. Garrett v. Wolfe, No. 5:22-cv-00202-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6

        & Nov. 29, 2022). We deny Garrett’s motion to appoint or assign counsel, to transfer case,

        and to dismiss appeal 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

                                                     2