Kenneth White v. R. Brown ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6922 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6922
KENNETH A. WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. BROWN, Warden, FCI Gilmer,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00058-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth A. White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6922 Doc: 5 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth A. White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to
challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to
§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.
However, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) “specifies the two limited conditions in which
Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks
on their sentences,” and a prisoner’s inability to satisfy those conditions “does not mean
that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the savings clause.” Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465, 480 (2023). Here, the district court correctly concluded that because White
cannot challenge his sentence under the savings clause, the court lacked jurisdiction over
his petition.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. White v. Brown, No. 3:24-cv-
00058-GMG-RWT (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 9, 2024). 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