
    Charles IZAC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHERS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-35938
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 16, 2017
    Charles Izac, Pro Se
    Natalie K. Wight, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Charles Izac appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Izac was convicted in the Northern District of West Virginia of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because he had suffered three prior convictions for first degree burglary from the State of Virginia. Izac filed a section 2241 habeas petition in the district of his confinement—the District of Oregon—challenging the legality of his sentence.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted Izac authorization to file a second or successive section 2255 motion challenging his sentence. Izac currently has a section 2255 motion pending in Northern District of West Virginia case number 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES. In light of the pendency of this motion, Izac cannot show that section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotations omitted). The district court therefore properly dismissed Izac’s section 2241 petition for failing to meet the requirements of section 2255(h)’s escape hatch. See id.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     