Court Opinion

ID: 9956801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:01:03.454656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:56.454117
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6702      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6702

        DANIEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Daniel Rodriguez,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN JANSON FCI EDGEFIELD,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01893-HMH)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Danny Angel Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6702      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Danny Angel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rodriguez’s

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Rodriguez sought to challenge his conviction by way

        of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge

        his conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 only if a § 2255

        motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See also

        Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023) (noting that a federal prisoner may only seek

        relief by way of § 2241 when “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable

        to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as [] challenges to detention other than

        collateral attacks on a sentence”). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rodriguez v. Warden Janson FCI

        Edgefield, No. 1:23-cv-01893-HMH (D.S.C. filed June 28 & entered June 29, 2023). We

        grant Rodriguez’s motion for an extension of time. 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