¶1 Ruben Mendez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), claiming that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). A petitioner may challenge his sentence under § 2241 only if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000). Mendez has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective as discussed in Jones, so he is not entitled to proceed under § 2241. * Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED
¶3 The district court also construed the petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it. Mendez intended his petition as one under § 2241, and because the district court did not have jurisdiction under § 2255 to consider the validity of Mendez’s sentence on his convictions arising out of the Southern District of Florida, we decline to consider this case under § 2255.