Lindsey v. Stansberry ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7402
LARRY THOMAS LINDSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-05-333-5-FL)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Thomas Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Thomas Lindsey filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000), seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence in
light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district
court construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lindsey
asserts that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the
legality of his detention and contends that his claims should be
considered under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause in § 2255.
Because Lindsey does not meet the standard set forth in In re
Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) for application of the
savings clause, we affirm the denial of relief. We deny as
unnecessary Lindsey’s “Motion for Leave to File a Formal Brief,” as
no leave is required; we have fully considered the brief proffered
with Lindsey’s motion. 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
- 2 -