[Unpublished]
Charles Pollock appeals after the district court
1
dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which sought relief based on Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019) (holding that for felon-in-possession offense, the government must prove a defendant knew they belonged to category of persons barred from possessing firearms). We are bound by this courts decision in Jones v. Hendrix that a petitioner cannot employ § 2241 to raise a claim under Rehaif when he could have raised a Rehaif-style argument either on direct appeal or in his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, even if circuit precedent “was at that time against him” because he “could have succeeded before the en banc court or before the Supreme Court.” Jones v.Hendrix, 8 F.4th 683, at *2–3 (8th Cir. 2021). As such, after careful review, we conclude that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Pollocks § 2241 petition. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pollocks motion to strike. See Dall v. United States, 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Pollocks pending motion to supplement the record and deny his motion for a court order.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Tony L. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
PER CURIAM.