CLD-171 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-1969 ___________

LEANTHONY T. WINSTON, Appellant

v.

WARDEN CANAAN USP ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-01081) District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani ____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action July 6, 2023 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 26, 2023) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se appellant LeAnthony T. Winston appeals the District Court’s dismissal of

his habeas petition filed pursuant to

and the denial of his motions for

reconsideration filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Government has

moved for summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we grant the Government’s

motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 2021, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia found Winston guilty of sex trafficking, firearms, and drug offenses. He was

sentenced to 460 months of imprisonment. Winston appealed. See United States v.

Winston, C.A. No. 22-4164 (4th Cir.).

In July 2022, Winston, who was incarcerated at USP Canaan, filed a petition under

in the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania. (ECF 1.) He asserted various grounds for challenging his conviction. The

Government filed a response in opposition to the petition. (ECF 11.) The District Court

dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Winston failed to demonstrate that

a motion under

would be an inadequate or ineffective remedy. (ECF 12

& 13.) Winston timely sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e). (ECF 14; 17; 18.) The District Court denied relief. (ECF 19.) Winston timely

appealed. (ECF 20.)

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to

. In reviewing the

District Court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition, we exercise plenary review over its legal

conclusions and review its factual findings for clear error. See Cradle v. United States ex 2 rel. Miner,

(3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). We review an order denying a

motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann,

Inc. v. Quinteros,

, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). We may summarily affirm a District

Court’s decision “on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails to present a

substantial question. Murray v. Bledsoe,

(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

“Motions pursuant to

are the presumptive means by which

federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences.” Okereke v. United States,

(3d Cir. 2002). The “savings clause” contained in § 2255(e) provides

an exception to this rule when a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to

test the legality of [the petitioner’s] detention.”

(e); see also Jones v.

Hendrix,

, 1866–69 (2023) (discussing the savings clause). Winston has

not established that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective here.1 At the time that he filed his

§ 2241 petition, Winston had not yet even completed his direct appeal to the Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. After that appeal is complete, if he is not satisfied, he

may collaterally challenge his conviction and sentence in the sentencing court pursuant to

§ 2255. See In re Olopade,

(3d Cir. 2003) (“Once the defendant has

completed a direct appeal, [he] may file one collateral challenge as a matter of course

provided it is timely.”).

1 We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Winston’s Rule 59(e) motions, which raised the same challenges to his conviction that were asserted in his § 2241 petition. 3 Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Government that the appeal presents no

substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we grant

the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

4