The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-6351 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6351
RICHARD HOLZER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. BROWN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:25-cv-00070-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Holzer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 25-6351 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Holzer, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to
challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to
§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his 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. *
However, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) “specifies the two limited conditions in which
Congress has permitted federal prisoners to bring second or successive collateral attacks
on their sentences,” and a prisoner’s inability to satisfy those conditions “does not mean
that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the savings clause.” Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465, 480 (2023). Here, the district court correctly concluded that because Holzer
cannot challenge his sentence under the savings clause, the court lacked jurisdiction over
his petition.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Holzer v. Brown, No.
5:25-cv-00070-JPB-JPM (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 11, 2025). 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
*
Holzer previously filed a § 2255 motion, which was denied.
2