Court Opinion

ID: 9412357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:46.381103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:10.499686
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6434      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6434

        TROY HOLMES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00274-JPB)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Troy Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6434      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Troy Holmes, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the

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

        in which he sought to challenge his carjacking and firearm possession convictions and

        resulting sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). ∗ In light of the

        Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. ____, No. 21-857, 2023

        WL 4110233, at *7-9 (U.S. June 22, 2023) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) provides the

        only two exceptions to Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s rule

        against second or successive collateral attacks on a criminal judgment), we conclude that

        Holmes cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.        Holmes v. United States,

        No. 5:22-cv-00274-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 13, 2023). 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

               ∗
                Holmes confines his appellate arguments to the district court’s dismissal of his
        claims challenging his convictions.

                                                     2