ANDERSON v. ANDREWS (2018)

Tito Lamont Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Anderson 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). As such, Anderson fails to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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).

We thus conclude that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Anderson's § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02061-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). We grant Anderson leave to proceed on appeal 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.