is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” (emphasis added)); Brace, 634 F.3d at 1169-70 (affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a petitioner’s § 2241 petition, where the petitioner could not meet § 2255(e)’s savings clause); see also Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir.2010) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed to meet the Fourth Circuit’s savings clause test); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to meet the Ninth Circuit’s savings clause test); cf. Palma-Sala-zar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1038 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we construe the district court’s
holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under  841 and 846 was not cognizable under  2241 holding claim is not cognizable holding that  2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge