Court Opinion

ID: 9947163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:03.135978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:55.196537
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7221      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7221

        JEFFREY BRIAN WALLER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        (FCI) MCDOWELL WARDEN,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00278)

        Submitted: December 6, 2023                                       Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before AGEE and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey Brian Waller, Appellant Pro Se. Holly J. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7221      Doc: 11        Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Jeffrey Brian Waller, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

        seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence 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, 143 S. Ct. 1857,

        1864, 1867-69 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount

        successive collateral challenges to federal convictions or sentences), we conclude that

        Waller cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order. See Waller v. Warden, No. 1:19-cv-00278 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 21, 2022). We

        deny his motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. 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