OPINION OF THE COURT
Mаrio Lenardo Cradle, an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp at Allenwood, Pennsylvania, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will affirm.
In 1990, Cradle pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to four drug-related charges in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He received four concurrent 20-year sentences. Cradle did not appeal his conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Ap
*538
peals. The nature of any post-conviction challenge Cradle launched against his convictiоn and sentence is less than clear on the record presented. Appellant posits conflicting information in his submissions, contending at one point that he did not collaterally attack his сonviction or sentence through the filing of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, while asserting in another that he has “failed to adhere to the one year limitation period, as provided for under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” A review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in
United States v. Cradle,
In January 2001, Cradle filed the underlying § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the United States District Court for the Western District of Nоrth Carolina was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence that it did because the government fаiled to provide him with notice of its intent to pursue enhanced sentencing under the recidivist prоvisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), as required by 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Despite conceding that he did not file a direct appeal challenging his sentence or challenging the enhanced penalty through the filing of a § 2255 motion, Cradlе contends that a § 2241 petition is the proper avenue for him to raise this claim becausе he is now barred from presenting his claim to the sentencing court in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The distriсt court summarily dismissed the petition, having concluded that Cradle failed to show that his remedy under § 2255 is inadеquate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention merely because he may now be time barred from challenging the enhanced penalty through the filing of a § 2255 motion. Additionally, the cоurt determined that Cradle’s claim did not fall within the narrow “savings clause” exception set forth in
In re Dorsainvil,
We hаve jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We exercise plenary review over the district court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its factual findings.
See Lambert v. Blackwell,
Cradle argues that a challenge tо the district court’s jurisdiction can be raised “any place and at any time,”
see
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 9, and since he is procedurally precluded from proceeding under § 2255, he must bе afforded an opportunity to attack his sentence through a § 2241 petition. However, under the explicit terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective,” a habeas corpus petition under § 2241 cannot be entertained by the court.
See also Application of Galante,
A § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffeсtive only where the petitioner demonstrates that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a § 2255 proceeding from affording him a full hearing and adjudication of his wrоngful detention claim.
Id.
(quoting
United States ex rel. Leguillou v. Davis,
There is no doubt that the claim Appellant presents in this petition falls within the purview of § 2255. Yet Cradle cites neither an intervening change in the law nor any extraordinary circumstances (in fact, he rеadily concedes that he had multiple chances to challenge his sentence) to establish that his remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. 28 U.S.C. § 2255;
see In re Dorsainvil,
Therefore, because it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the district court’s order.