Jones v. Hamidullah

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6203

CORNELIUS JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH; ALBERTO GONZALES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:05-cv-00439-DCN)

Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: July 21, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelius Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Cornelius Jones filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000), which the district court construed as a successive motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. Jones appeals this order and the order denying his

motion for reconsideration. Although the district court construed

the § 2241 petition as a § 2255 motion, Jones clearly intended to

file a § 2241 petition. Jones asserts on appeal that § 2255 is

inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention

and contends that his claims should be considered in the context of

his § 2241 petition. Because Jones does not meet the standard set

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

affirm the denial of relief and the court’s denial of Jones’ motion

for reconsideration. 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 -