USCA4 Appeal: 19-6124 Doc: 40 Filed: 11/03/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6124

WILLIAM STAPLES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden at USP Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00018-JPB-JES)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: November 3, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Staples, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-6124 Doc: 40 Filed: 11/03/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM

William Staples appeals the district court’s order, issued on remand from this court,

see Staples v. O’Brien,

(4th Cir. 2018) (No. 17-7606), dismissing his

petition in which Staples sought to challenge his armed career criminal

designation based on Johnson v. United States,

(2015). Applying the

principles as set forth in our recent decision in Slusser v. Vereen,

, 594-96 (4th

Cir. 2022), * we agree with the district court that Staples has failed to satisfy the

requirements of the savings clause of

(e). While we find no reversible

error in the court’s dismissal of Staples’ § 2241 petition, because the district court lacked

jurisdiction over Staples’ petition, Rice v. Rivera,

(4th Cir. 2010),

we modify the district court’s order, Staples v. O’Brien, No. 2:16-cv-00018-JPB-JES

(N.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 2019), to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, see Ali v.

Hogan,

(4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that a dismissal based on a “defect

in subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice” (internal quotation marks

omitted)), and affirm the order as modified, see

. We deny Staples’

motions for summary judgment and for summary disposition. 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 AS MODIFIED

* We held this appeal in abeyance pending a decision in Slusser.

2