Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07681/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Justin Andrews
Appellee
Darvis Adib Santiesteban
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7681

DARVIS ADIB SANTIESTEBAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02036-BO)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darvis Adib Santiesteban, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7681 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darvis Adib Santiesteban, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition, in which he sought to 

challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018), and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge 

his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion 

would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence 

when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s 

direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive 

law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; 

(3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) 

for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the 

sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental 

defect.

United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Santiesteban v. Andrews, No. 

5:18-hc-02036-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 8, 2019; Oct. 30, 2019). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7681 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2020 Pg: 2 of 2