ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Geoffrey L. Rashaw-Bey, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the district court’s order of dismissal.
A federal jury in the Western District of Missouri convicted Rashaw-Bey on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possessing an unregistered firearm. The district court sentenced Rashaw-Bey to a term of imprisonment of 360 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Rashaw, 170 Fed.Appx. 986, 986-87 (8th Cir.2006). Rashaw-Bey then filed a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western District of Missouri. After that court denied relief, the Eighth Circuit denied Rashaw-Bey’s request for a certifi*846cate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.
In January of 2009, while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Leavenworth, Kansas, Rashaw-Bey filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States Court for the District of Kansas. In his § 2241 petition. Rashaw-Bey attacked the validity of both his convictions and sentences. The district court dismissed Rashaw-Bey’s petition, concluding the proper remedy was for Rashaw-Bey to file a § 2255 motion in the Western District of Missouri. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). Rashaw-Bey appeals.
Upon de novo review of the record and Rashaw-Bey’s appellate brief, id., this court concludes the district court was correct in dismissing Rashaw-Bey’s § 2241 petition. A § 2241 petition is not the proper means to raise the claims set out by Rashaw-Bey. Instead, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, a § 2255 motion in the Western District of Missouri is the exclusive remedy for Rashaw-Bey to challenge his conviction and sentence. Ra-shaw-Bey has not, however, established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion.1 The mere fact Rashaw-Bey has been denied relief under § 2255 does not establish that statutory remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Id. Likewise, that he may be precluded from filing a second § 2255 motion does not establish that statutory remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir.1999). Accordingly, the district was correct to dismiss Ra-shaw-Bey’s § 2241 petition.
The order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissing Rashaw-Bey’s § 2241 petition is hereby AFFIRMED.