Court Opinion

ID: 9407668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 21:01:20.162808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.637871
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6208      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6208

        FRED HALL,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. HUDGINS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00134-GM)

        Submitted: June 27, 2023                                            Decided: July 6, 2023

        Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Fred Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6208      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Fred Hall appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

        magistrate judge and dismissing Hall’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

        In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857, 2023 WL

        4110233, at *7-9 (U.S. June 22, 2023) (holding that petitioner cannot use § 2241 petition

        to mount successive collateral attack on validity of federal sentence), we conclude that Hall

        cannot pursue his claims in a § 2241 petition.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hall’s § 2241 petition.

        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