UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALVIN S. JACK,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 98-7015

STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-98-369-3)

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Decided: February 12, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas Edward Dempsey, VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell,
Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, G.
Wingate Grant, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alvin S. Jack appeals the district court's order dismissing his col-
lateral attack on his 1992 conviction for drug trafficking offenses. See
21 U.S.C. § 952(a) (1994); 21 U.S.C. § 963 (1994). In an attempt to
circumvent the limitations on second or successive motions imposed
by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Jack described his motion as a peti-
tion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Because
of the nature of the relief Jack sought, the district court construed the
petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998), and dismissed Jack's motion. Jack appeals this final order.

A petition under § 2241 is an available avenue of collateral attack
for a federal prisoner serving a federal sentence only where a motion
under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S.
372, 381 (1977). On appeal, as in the district court, Jack claims that
a motion under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because he has
unsuccessfully appealed the denial of his prior§ 2255 motion. Jack
asserts that he has "no other alternative" than to file this § 2241 peti-
tion. We have stated that "the remedy afforded by§ 2255 is not ren-
dered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been
unable to obtain relief under that provision, . . . or . . . is procedurally
barred from filing a § 2255 motion." In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194
n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Because Jack has merely
claimed that he has previously been unsuccessful in obtaining § 2255
relief, he has failed to show that the proceedings under § 2255 were
somehow "inadequate or ineffective."

In his reply brief, Jack argues that because he has not had "one fair
opportunity" to raise the claims he asserts in this latest collateral
attack, he should be able to utilize § 2241 to present those claims not-

                     2
withstanding his prior attempt under § 2255. Cf. In re Davenport, 147
F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding § 2241 authorized when
movant has not had a "reasonable opportunity"); Triestman v. United
States, 124 F.3d 361, 377 (2d Cir. 1997) (allowing § 2241 when not
doing so presented "serious constitutional questions"); In re
Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir. 1997) (deciding § 2241
allowed to avoid a "complete miscarriage of justice"). Even assuming
Jack presented this argument to the district court, Jack has not shown
how his direct appeal and first attempt at § 2255 relief did not consti-
tute a "fair opportunity" to raise his claims. Jack's position is under-
mined by the fact that this court rejected two of the three "new"
claims in his direct appeal. See United States v. Jack, No. 92-5334
(4th Cir. Mar. 26, 1993) (unpublished). Similarly, the district court
rejected the third ground for relief raised in the instant motion in dis-
missing Jack's prior § 2255 motion. Jack's assertion that he has not
had a "fair opportunity" to raise his claims is belied by the record, and
does not render § 2255 "inadequate or ineffective." See In re
Davenport, 147 F.3d at 611.

As a result, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

                     3
