Court Opinion

ID: 9961895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:40.453401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.309550
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7129      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7129

        JULIUS ANDREW REASON, III,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN JANSON,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:23-cv-01894-BHH)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                             Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julius Andrew Reason, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7129         Doc: 7     Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Julius Andrew Reason, III, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice

        Reason’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions 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) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241

        petition to mount successive collateral challenges to federal convictions or sentence), we

        conclude that Reason cannot pursue his challenges in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. Reason v. Janson, No. 4:23-cv-01894-BHH (D.S.C. Oct.

        20, 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