Charles Izac v. Marion Feathers , 695 F. App'x 332 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES IZAC, No. 15-35938
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01713-JE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARION FEATHERS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Charles Izac appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241
petition, see Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Izac was convicted in the Northern District of West Virginia of being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and received an
enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because he
had suffered three prior convictions for first degree burglary from the State of
Virginia. Izac filed a section 2241 habeas petition in the district of his confinement
– the District of Oregon – challenging the legality of his sentence.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted Izac
authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 motion challenging his
sentence. Izac currently has a section 2255 motion pending in Northern District of
West Virginia case number 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES. In light of the pendency of
this motion, Izac cannot show that section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention.” Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotations
omitted). The district court therefore properly dismissed Izac’s section 2241
petition for failing to meet the requirements of section 2255(h)’s escape hatch. See
id.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35938