Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06991/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06991-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warden
Appellee
John G. Westine
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6991

JOHN G. WESTINE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, FMC Butner,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02014-FL)

Submitted: April 9, 2020 Decided: June 9, 2020

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John G. Westine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6991 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John G. Westine, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and 

sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a 

prisoner may challenge his conviction or sentence via a traditional writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to § 2241 if a motion under § 2255 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) (emphasis added). 

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

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

Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the 

prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed 

such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to 

be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of 

§ 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333–34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 

We have reviewed the record and find that Westine’s claim meets neither the 

Wheeler test nor the Jones test. Accordingly, we deny Westine’s motion to expedite, grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Westine v. Warden, No. 5:19-hc-02014-FL (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2019). We dispense with 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6991 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 19-6991 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/09/2020 Pg: 3 of 3