Court Opinion

ID: 9928123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 21:00:31.901057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:07.302990
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6815      Doc: 6         Filed: 01/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6815

        TERRANCE JEROME RILEY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00048-GMG)

        Submitted: January 25, 2024                                       Decided: January 29, 2024

        Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terrance Jerome Riley, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6815      Doc: 6         Filed: 01/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terrance Jerome Riley appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation, dismissing Riley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of

        jurisdiction, and denying reconsideration. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision

        in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241

        petition to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal sentence), we conclude

        that Riley cannot pursue his challenge 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