DocketNumber: 22-6846
Filed Date: 7/21/2023
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/22/2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6846 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6846 ERNEST FRANKLIN CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN D. LEU, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02099-D) Submitted: July 7, 2023 Decided: July 21, 2023 Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Franklin Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6846 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ernest Franklin Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition seeking to challenge his18 U.S.C. § 924
(c) convictions by way of the savings clause in28 U.S.C. § 2255
(e). Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Hendrix, __ S. Ct. __, No. 21-857,2023 WL 4110233
, at *7-9 (U.S. June 22, 2023) (abrogating In re Jones,226 F.3d 328
(4th Cir. 2000)), we find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Clark’s § 2241 petition. However, because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s petition, see Rice v. Rivera,617 F.3d 802
, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2010), we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, see Ali v. Hogan,26 F.4th 587
, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that dismissal based on “defect in subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice” (internal quotation marks omitted), and affirm the order as modified, see28 U.S.C. § 2106
. 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 AS MODIFIED 2