Court Opinion

ID: 9411160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:37.835434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:04.867272
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7118      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7118

        ROBERT CURTIS COVINGTON,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, FCI Butner Medium II,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02314-D)

        Submitted: February 17, 2023                                        Decided: July 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert Curtis Covington, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7118         Doc: 9        Filed: 07/24/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Curtis Covington, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Covington’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which

        Covington sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in

        28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as the court’s order denying Covington’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

        motion. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction and sentence in a

        traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate

        or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

               We have reviewed the record and, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones

        v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s orders. Covington v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02314-D (E.D.N.C. July 20,

        2022; Sept. 22, 2022). We deny as moot Covington’s motion for abeyance pending the

        Jones decision. 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