Court Opinion

ID: 9947020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:21.199301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.053214
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6355      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 23-6355

        JACK RUSSEL BRISTOL,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN C. CARTER,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00776-DKC)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jack Russel Bristol, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6355         Doc: 8      Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jack Russel Bristol, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing

        Bristol’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), (e), (f) convictions by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

        In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023)

        (holding that a petitioner cannot use a § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral

        challenges to federal convictions or sentence), we conclude that Bristol cannot pursue his

        claims in a § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing

        Bristol’s § 2241 petition.      Bristol v. Carter, No. 1:23-cv-00776-DKC (D. Md.

        Mar. 27, 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