MOORE v. BEASLEY (2019)

[Unpublished]

Danny Moore appeals after the district court ¹ dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he asserted his prior burglary convictions no longer qualified as career-offender predicates after Mathis v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2257, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). Upon careful de novo review, see Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that Moore’s claim does not entitle him to relief. See, e.g., Martin v. United States, 904 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.