Court Opinion

ID: 9555502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-13 02:01:51.964725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:58.497048
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6612      Doc: 13         Filed: 08/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6612

        PAUL D. SHEGONEE,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN STREEVAL,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00162-MFU-PMS)

        Submitted: August 8, 2023                                         Decided: August 11, 2023

        Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Paul D. Shegonee, Appellant Pro Se. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6612      Doc: 13          Filed: 08/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Paul D. Shegonee, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

        his 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, 1868-69 (2023) (holding that petitioner

        cannot use § 2241 petition by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) to mount

        successive collateral attack on validity of federal conviction), we conclude that Shegonee

        cannot pursue his claim in a § 2241 petition.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Shegonee’s § 2241

        petition. Shegonee v. Streeval, No. 7:21-cv-00162-MFU-PMS (W.D. Va. May 3, 2022).

        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