Crawford

*613 MEMORANDUM **

David W. Crawford appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal; of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his sentence for being a felon in possession of a fire arm and an armed career criminal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(e)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we review the district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm.

Crawford contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides an inadequate or ineffective remedy to test the legality of his detention. This contention is without merit because a district court’s previous denial of relief on the merits is not alone sufficient to show that the section 2255 remedy is inadequate. Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1162 . A habeas petitioner cannot circumvent the bar against successive § 2255 motions by bringing a § 2241 petition raising claims otherwise appropriately addressed in a § 2255 motion. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming the denial of a § 2241 petition raising the same claims…