Court Opinion

ID: 9881784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:59.367706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.114497
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6839      Doc: 52         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-6839

        JAMES F. KANE,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00238-MR)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Joshua B. Carpenter, Appellate
        Chief, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. William T. Stetzer, Acting United States Attorney,
        Elizabeth M. Greenough, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6839      Doc: 52          Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James F. Kane appeals the district court’s order dismissing Kane’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v.

        Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1867-69 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241

        petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal sentence), we conclude

        that Kane cannot pursue his challenge in a § 2241 petition.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Kane’s § 2241 petition.

        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