Issac Williams v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00607-TDS-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000268300]. Mailed to: Issac Lamont Williams. [17-7471]

Appeal: 17-7471

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/02/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7471

ISSAC LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00607-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Issac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7471

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/02/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Issac Lamont Williams appeals the district court’s order and judgment, adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition challenging his sentence as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it
as successive and without authorization from this court. Williams contends on appeal that
§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, arguing that his
challenge to his sentence under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), should be
considered under § 2241. Williams has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that
§ 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention.
See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d
263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Williams’
petition, we affirm the court’s dismissal. 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

2