Court Opinion

ID: 9957260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:43.742151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:13.665258
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7068      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7068

        DEMOND GLOVER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN HOLZAPFEL,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-hc-02044-D)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Demond Glover, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7068      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Demond Glover appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. In light of the Supreme Court’s

        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 conviction

        or sentence), we conclude that Glover cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Glover v. Holzapfel, No. 5:23-hc-02044-

        D (E.D.N.C. May 15, 2023; Oct. 5, 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