¶1 Alan A. Petersen appeals a district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We affirm.
¶2 A federal prisoner seeking to challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must proceed pursuant to § 2255, with § 2241 petitions generally reserved for challenges to the execution of the prisoner’s sentence. In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n. 5 (4th Cir.1997). However, in limited circumstances, § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of the detention. In those cases, the prisoner “may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district of confinement pursuant to § 2241.” In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2000). Petersen does not meet the Jones test because the mere fact he is unable to obtain or is procedurally barred from pursuing relief under § 2255 does not render that section inadequate or ineffective. See Jones, 226 F.3d at 333. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 2241 relief for the reasons stated by the district court. See Petersen v. Winkler, No. CA-05-196-5-FL (E.D.N.C. filed May 26, 2005; entered June 2, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *345 and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶3 AFFIRMED