John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrews
This text of 700 F. App'x 283 (John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
700 F. App'x 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-meredith-iv-v-justin-andrews-ca4-2017.