ORDER

RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on remand from the Fourth Circuit.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2001, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in this District on one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1). Based on Petitioner's two prior drug convictions, which were noticed by the Government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, Petitioner was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). (5:99-cr-00070, Doc. No. 105: Judgment).1 On July 16, 2002, Petitioner's judgment was affirmed on appeal and he did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari. See United States v. Morrison, 39 F. App'x 927 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished).

On December 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se § 2255 motion to vacate in which he challenged his criminal judgment. The Court conducted an initial review of the motion and concluded that Petitioner's motion should be dismissed because it was untimely and he had offered no just reason to excuse his untimely filing. See Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. (5:05-cv-00285, Doc. No. 2: Order). Petitioner did not appeal, although he did file a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Fourth Circuit contending that this Court unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to alter or amend the judgment which dismissed his § 2255 motion to vacate. This petition was denied. In Re: Alphonso Ravon Morrison, No. 09-1133 (4th Cir. Nov. 6, 2009). (Id. Doc. No. 8).

On October 1, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas relief from his judgment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 2241 contending that he is entitled to sentencing relief based on, among other authority, the Fourth Circuit's en banc opinion in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011). Petitioner also included alternative claims for relief pursuant to writs of coram nobis or audita querela under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the "All Writs Act").2 Petitioner argued that his 1998 state drug convictions, which the Government noticed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, are no longer valid, predicate convictions that can support his statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of life imprisonment because he could not have received more than a year in prison on the convictions. Consequently, Petitioner contended that he was entitled to be resentenced without the Court's consideration of his prior state drug convictions. (5:12-cv-00150, Doc. No. 1: Petition for Habeas Corpus). In response to this Court's order, the Government filed an answer arguing that Petitioner's claim for relief should be denied because it was untimely, and in any event, relief was unwarranted because Petitioner's sentence was within the statutory maximum. (Id., Doc. No. 4: Response in Opposition).

On January 9, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying the § 2241 petition and his alternative claims for relief. In sum, the Court found that § 2241 relief was precluded by the Fourth Circuit's opinion in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and his alternative claims for relief were barred by other controlling precedent. Petitioner appealed and the Fourth Circuit granted the parties' joint motion to remand to this Court to consider the Government's new position that Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under § 2241. See Morrison v. United States, No. 13-6353 (4th Cir. filed Nov. 21, 2013). (Id., Doc. No. 9). On remand, the Government now agrees that Petitioner is entitled to sentencing relief based on Simmons, among other authority. (Id., Doc. No. 13: Government's Response).

II. DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that Petitioner's 1998 North Carolina drug convictions no longer qualify as a predicate felonies following Simmons. However, a petitioner seeking to attack his conviction or sentence must file a motion under § 2255 unless this remedy "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). "It is beyond question that § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual is unable to obtain relief under that provision." In re Jones, 226 F.3d at 333 (internal citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has concluded, and recently reaffirmed, that the remedy under § 2255 is "in adequate or ineffective" only when:

Id. at 333-34. See also United States v. Surratt, Jr., 797 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2015) (applying Jones and denying § 2241 relief from mandatory life sentence based on now invalid North Carolina felony drug conviction under Simmons).

Here, Petitioner does not challenge the legality of his conviction, rather he contends that he should be entitled to habeas relief from his mandatory minimum sentence under § 2241. The Court finds, however, that based on the foregoing authority, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief from his sentence under § 2241.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this civil case.

SO ORDERED.