Danny Stokes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Although the district court may have improperly construed Stokes’ petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), over which it had no jurisdiction, Stokes did not qualify for relief under § 2241. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (describing circumstances under which § 2241 relief is appropriate on the basis that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *133 and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.