Court Opinion

ID: 9837999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:16.795211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.776774
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6344      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6344

        CHRISTOPHER MCGEE,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN C. MARUKA, Federal Correctional Institution McDowell,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00360)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher McGee, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6344      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher McGee, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

        the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing McGee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

        in which he sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) convictions under

        Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255(e). The Supreme Court has squarely 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, 143 S. Ct. 1857,

        1864 (2023). Like the petitioner in Jones, McGee may not challenge his §§ 922(g)(1),

        924(a)(2) convictions based on Rehaif through a § 2241 petition by way of § 2255(e)’s

        savings clause. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. McGee v.

        Maruka, No. 1:20-cv-00360 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 20, 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