Little v. Hamidullah, No. 05-7351 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7351 WALTER LITTLE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Defendant - Appellee. No. 06-6003 WALTER LITTLE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-2080-HMH) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Little, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Walter Little, Jr., a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the validity of his sentence claiming that he was actually innocent of being a career offender. The district court accepted the magistrate judge s recommendation and rejected Little s claim that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) was inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention.* Because Little does not meet the standard set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the district court s denial of his § 2241 petition. We also affirm the district court s denial of Little s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The district court also noted that to the extent it might consider Little s claim under § 2255, such relief would be barred as successive. We also note that the district court erroneously stated that Little was sentenced as an armed career criminal instead of a career offender. - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.