Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07776/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wakeel Abdul-Sabur
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7776

WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00107-GEC-PMS) 

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7776 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition—in which he sought to challenge his 46-month sentence 

for mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 (2018), by way 

of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)—and its order denying his motion for 

reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1318 

(2019). 

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. Abdul-Sabur v. United States, No. 7:18-cv00107-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va. Aug. 27 & Nov. 21, 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: 19-7776 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2