Jeffrey v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 29, 2006·No. 06-6711·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6711

ROBERT LARRY JEFFREY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-hc-00039-H)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 29, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Larry Jeffrey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Robert Larry Jeffrey, Jr., a federal prisoner, filed a

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the validity

of his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district court

denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241. Jeffrey

argues on appeal that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is inadequate and

ineffective to test the legality of his detention, contending that

his sentencing claim should be considered in the context of his

§ 2241 petition. Because Jeffrey does not meet the standard under

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the

denial of relief. 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 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jeffrey v. United States, (4th Cir. 2006).

Jeffrey v. United States (Jeffrey v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)