
    Larry Thomas LINDSEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-7402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 18, 2006.
    Decided: May 26, 2006.
    Larry Thomas Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Larry Thomas Lindsey filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The district court construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lindsey asserts that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention and contends that his claims should be considered under § 2241 pursuant to the savings clause in § 2255. Because Lindsey does not meet the standard set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000) for application of the savings clause, we affirm the denial of relief. We deny as unnecessary Lindsey’s “Motion for Leave to File a Formal Brief,” as no leave is required; we have fully considered the brief proffered with Lindsey’s motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  