Little v. Hamidullah ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7351
WALTER LITTLE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 06-6003
WALTER LITTLE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-05-2080-HMH)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Little, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Walter Little, Jr., a federal prisoner, filed a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the validity of his
sentence claiming that he was “actually innocent” of being a career
offender. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and rejected Little’s claim that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) was inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.* Because Little does not meet the standard set forth in
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the
district court’s denial of his § 2241 petition. We also affirm the
district court’s denial of Little’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The district court also noted that to the extent it might
consider Little’s claim under § 2255, such relief would be barred
as successive. We also note that the district court erroneously
stated that Little was sentenced as an armed career criminal
instead of a career offender.
- 3 -