Court Opinion

ID: 9410660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 21:00:39.879864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.365802
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6846      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6846

        ERNEST FRANKLIN CLARK,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN D. LEU,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02099-D)

        Submitted: July 7, 2023                                           Decided: July 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ernest Franklin Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6846      Doc: 14          Filed: 07/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ernest Franklin Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2241 petition seeking to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions by way of the

        savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in

        Jones v. Hendrix, __ S. Ct. __, No. 21-857, 2023 WL 4110233, at *7-9 (U.S. June 22,

        2023) (abrogating In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000)), we find no reversible error

        in the district court’s dismissal of Clark’s § 2241 petition. However, because the district

        court lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s petition, see Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807-08

        (4th Cir. 2010), we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without

        prejudice, see Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that dismissal

        based on “defect in subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice” (internal

        quotation marks omitted), and affirm the order as modified, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 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 AS MODIFIED

                                                      2