*1 Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Rios-Vizcarra appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rios-Vizcarra claims that a prior state conviction in California should not be construed as a “prior drug felony” *2 for the purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013). The district court held that his motion did not qualify as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because it did not claim actual innocence, and dismissed it. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
The district court did not err when it concluded that Rios-Vizcarra failed to satisfy the requirement of the § 2255(e) escape hatch. Even if it is possible for a petitioner to “be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence for the purpose of qualifying for the escape hatch,” Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193, (9th Cir.
2012), Rios-Vizcarra fails to make a plausible showing of actual innocence. Rios- Vizcarra does not allege that he was factually innocent of the state conviction, nor was Rios-Vizcarra statutorily ineligible to receive his sentence, either with or without the enhancement. Finally, Rios-Vizcarra’s sentence poses no violation of constitutional rights. Failing to meet any of the possible exceptions to the § 2255(e) escape hatch for noncapital sentencing enhancements outlined in Marrero, 682 F.3d at 1193 – 95, Rios-Vizcarra cannot bring a § 2241 petition to challenge his sentence.
AFFIRMED .
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).