Court Opinion

ID: 9930917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:10.857108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:26.543083
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6877      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6877

        TONY TAYLOR,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN, FCI Fort Dix,

                             Respondent - Appellee,

               and

        DAVID L. YOUNG,

                             Respondent.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00414)

        Submitted: January 25, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tony Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6877       Doc: 12          Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tony Taylor, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Taylor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

        lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his § 2241 petition, Taylor sought to challenge his

        18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), by

        way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Supreme Court recently held “that

        § 2255(e)’s saving[s] clause does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in

        statutory interpretation to circumvent [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

        of 1996]’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.”

        Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 471 (2023). Instead, “[§] 2255(h) specifies the two limited

        conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive

        collateral attacks on their sentences.” Id. at 480. In light of Jones, Taylor cannot pursue

        his claim in a § 2241 petition by way of § 2255(e)’s savings clause.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, Taylor v. Warden, No. 5:21-cv-

        00414 (S.D.W. Va. July 19, 2022), as modified to reflect that the dismissal of Taylor’s

        claims is without prejudice, see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v.

        OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for lack

        of . . . subject matter jurisdiction[] must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks

        jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.”). We deny

        as moot Taylor’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance for the Supreme Court’s decision

        in Jones.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6877         Doc: 12    Filed: 02/06/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

              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 AS MODIFIED

                                                  3