Court Opinion

ID: 9352363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:40.093332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:58.977630
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6071      Doc: 8        Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 21-6071

        JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARK BRECKON, Warden, United States Penitentiary Lee,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00200-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6071      Doc: 8         Filed: 01/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeffrey A. Pleasant appeals the district court’s orders dismissing for lack of

        jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying reconsideration. Applying the

        principles as set forth in our recent decision in Slusser v. Vereen, 36 F.4th 590, 594-96

        (4th Cir. 2022), we agree with the district court that Pleasant failed to satisfy the

        requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Accordingly, having reviewed

        the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s orders. Pleasant v.

        Breckon, No. 7:19-cv-00200-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2020; Jan. 11, 2021). We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the material before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional

        process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2