Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07221/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norman Lee
Appellant
Jennifer Saad
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7221

NORMAN LEE, JR.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden, FCI Gilmer,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:18-cv-00181-FPS)

Submitted: January 29, 2020 Decided: February 13, 2020

Before KING, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7221 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman Lee, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Lee’s 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 conclude that Lee has not met the Wheeler test, 

thus, there is no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny Lee’s motion for summary judgment and affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Lee v. Saad, No. 5:18-cv-00181-FPS (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 2, 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: 19-7221 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 2