Everett v. Ray ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6121
JAMIE RAY EVERETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
M. E. RAY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1882-0-13BD)
Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamie Ray Everett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Ray Everett appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal without
prejudice of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994)
for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. To the extent
that Everett seeks to challenge the computation of his sentence, he
must exhaust administrative remedies. See United States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 334-37 (1992). To the extent that Everett seeks to
challenge the validity of his conviction, such a claim may only be
raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999).* See generally Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977);
United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489-90 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
*
Because Everett has already filed one § 2255 motion, he may
not file another § 2255 motion absent authorization from this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).
2