OPINION *
Pro se appellant Robert Lynn appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. As the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will *68summarily affirm the decision of the District Court.
I.
Following a 2011 jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Lynn was convicted of a number of fraud-related charges, and sentenced by the District Court to a 180-month term of imprisonment. We affirmed the judgment at C.A. No. 12-1016. Lynn then filed a § 2255 motion, which the District Court denied. Several months later, Lynn filed the instant petition under section 2241, claiming that his “constitutional rights were violated repeatedly prior [to] and during trial” based primarily on the government’s alleged confiscation of funds which Lynn apparently intended to use to pay his defense counsel. The District Court entered an order directing Lynn to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. After Lynn responded, the District Court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction, treating it as a successive § 2255 motion brought without authorization from this Court. This timely appeal ensued.1
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the Distinct Court’s dismissal of Lynn’s habeas petition. Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir.2007). We may summarily affirm the District Court where “it clearly appears that no substantial, question is presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in circumstances warrants such action.” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2015).
We detect no error in the District Court’s dismissal of Lynn’s petition because his claims — which all relate to the validity of his federal conviction and sentence — must normally be raised in a § 2255 motion. Because he has already filed one and lost on the merits, he may not file another without obtaining our permission.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 127 S.Ct. 793, 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007). And as the District Court explained, he may not use section 2241 instead unless he shows that such a motion would be “inadequate of ineffective.” Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.2002). None of his claims meet that standard.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the decision of the District Court.3