Court Opinion

ID: 9837994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:11.881446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.743537
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6456      Doc: 6           Filed: 09/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-6456

        ELVIN IRIZARRY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN R. RAMOS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-hc-02190-M)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elvin Irizarry, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6456         Doc: 6      Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elvin Irizarry appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition for a

        writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he sought to challenge his

        conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), and denying

        his motion for reconsideration. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v.

        Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1869 (2023) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) provides only

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

        second or successive collateral attacks on criminal judgments), we conclude that Irizarry

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

        orders. 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