GROOVER v. UNITED STATES (2018)

Jeffrey Emil Groover, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.^* Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Groover v. United States, No. 5:17-hc-02039-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2018). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Groover relies on United States v. Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 715 (4th Cir. 2006), to argue that the district court was required to consider his challenges to the sentencing court's subject matter jurisdiction. However, the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider those challenges in a § 2241 petition. See United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 423–24 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) is jurisdictional provision).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.