MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Raymond Bingham appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bingham’s § 2241 petition because he has not demonstrated that a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (rejecting contention that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective merely because the prisoner’s § 2255 motion might be second or successive). Although Bingham couches his claims as a challenge to the execution of his sentence, he is actually challenging the validity of the sentence imposed by the district court. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Bingham’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

Bingham’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.