Quintana

MEMORANDUM

Jorge Luis Jaime Quintana appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the legality of his drug trafficking convictions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Quintana contends that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2241 petition attacking his convictions because it is the only form of collateral relief available in light of the limitations imposed by the Anti-Terrorism - and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The denial of permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, however, does not render federal habeas relief ineffective or inadequate, and because Quintana failed to show how a § 2255 motion was an inadequate or ineffective remedy, he was not entitled to petition for relief under § 2241. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (concluding that a habeas petitioner may not avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to *587 § 2241 rather than § 2255), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1178 , 120 S.Ct. 1214 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1115 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for…