Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07299/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerard Montero Felder
Appellant
J. Ray Ormond
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7299

GERARD MONTERO FELDER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. RAY ORMOND,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00240-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: March 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Montero Felder, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7299 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerard Montero Felder, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

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). 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, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Felder v. Ormond, No. 3:18-cv-00240-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 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: 19-7299 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 2 of 2