Joseph Lovett v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 2000 , Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 196 2004

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6089
JOSEPH LOVETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden, FCI Edgefield,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:05-cv-03026-DCN)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Lovett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Lovett filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000), claiming that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 196 (2004),
and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). A petitioner may
challenge his sentence under § 2241 only if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Jones, 226 F. 3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.
2000). Lovett has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective as discussed in Jones, so he is not entitled to proceed
under § 2241. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief
without prejudice. Furthermore, we affirm the district court’s
order denying Lovett’s 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 of 2 --