*1 Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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. *2 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.

2 15-35938

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

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).