MEMORANDUM **

Rith appeals from the district court’s judgment of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Although Rith’s argument that he was entitled to bring a section 2241 petition was based on his contention that he was “actually innocent,” he did not argue that he was actually innocent of the crime of *685conviction. His argument that he was innocent of his career offender status for sentencing purposes is “not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence.” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2012) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1264, 185 L.Ed.2d 606 (2013). He has not argued that any of the exceptions to this rule recognized by our sister circuits apply here. See Id. at 1194-95. Accordingly, the district court did not err in holding it had no jurisdiction to hear the petition. Id. at 1195.

AFFIRMED.