Court Opinion

ID: 9960730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:56.477329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:51.678817
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6486      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6486

        JULIO SOLORZANO,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN LOVETT,

                             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-00303-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                           Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julio Solorzano, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6486      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Julio Solorzano, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

        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, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding

        that a prisoner cannot use § 2241 petition to mount a successive collateral attack on the

        validity of federal conviction or sentence), we conclude that Solorzano cannot pursue his

        claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Solorzano

        v. Lovett, No. 5:22-cv-00303-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. May 2, 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

                                                    2