John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrews

700 F. App'x 283
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 7, 2017·No. 13-7306·Unpublished·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Franklin Meredith, IV, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. Meredith relies on the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have “not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence.” United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction over Meredith’s petition. Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We therefore modify its order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as modified. We grant Meredith leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

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

John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrews, 700 F. App'x 283 (4th Cir. 2017).

700 F. App'x 283 (John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Copeland v. Kassell
N.D. West Virginia, 2018
Crider v. Kallis
N.D. West Virginia, 2018