Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Brad Christopher Hull appeals the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition challenging his sentence as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as successive. Hull contends on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, arguing that his challenge to his sentence under Mathis v. United States, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), should be considered under § 2241. Hull has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked jurisdiction over Hull’s petition, Rice, 617 F.3d at 807, and we therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hull’s § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 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