Court Opinion

ID: 9412367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:56.365997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:31.223022
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6023      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6023

        LONNIE W. HUBBARD,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        S. BROWN, Acting Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00196-JPB)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lonnie W. Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6023         Doc: 10        Filed: 07/28/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lonnie W. Hubbard, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hubbard’s 28 U.S.C.

        § 2241 petition in which Hubbard sought to challenge his conviction by way of the savings

        clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.        The United States Supreme Court recently held that

        “§ 2255(e)’s saving clause does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in

        statutory interpretation to circumvent [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

        of 1996]’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.”

        Jones v. Hendrix, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 21-857, 2023 WL 4110233, *5 (U.S. June 22, 2023).

        Hubbard therefore cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order denying relief.

               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