Robert Curtis Covington v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, FCI Butner Medium II

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7118
ROBERT CURTIS COVINGTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, FCI Butner Medium II,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02314-D)
Submitted: February 17, 2023 Decided: July 24, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Curtis Covington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Curtis Covington, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Covington’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which
Covington sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in
28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as the court’s order denying Covington’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction and sentence in a
traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
We have reviewed the record and, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones
v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s orders. Covington v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02314-D (E.D.N.C. July 20,
2022; Sept. 22, 2022). We deny as moot Covington’s motion for abeyance pending the
Jones decision. 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 of 2 --