Issac Williams v. United States ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7471
    ISSAC LAMONT WILLIAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00607-TDS-LPA)
    Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 2, 2018
    Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Issac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Issac Lamont Williams appeals the district court’s order and judgment, adopting the
    magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, construing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012)
    petition challenging his sentence as a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion, and dismissing it
    as successive and without authorization from this court. Williams contends on appeal that
    § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, arguing that his
    challenge to his sentence under Mathis v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
     (2016), should be
    considered under § 2241. Williams has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that
    § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention.
    See Rice v. Rivera, 
    617 F.3d 802
    , 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 
    531 F.3d 263
    , 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Williams’
    petition, we affirm the court’s dismissal. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-7471

Filed Date: 4/2/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021