Court Opinion

ID: 9375101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:09.83013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.972830
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6732      Doc: 6         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6732

        KIRK A. SIMMONS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        THOMAS SCARANTINO,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-hc-02136-M)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kirk A. Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6732       Doc: 6          Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kirk A. Simmons appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction by way of the savings clause

        in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction 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
               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).

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

        for the reasons stated by the district court. Simmons v. Scarantino, No. 5:21-hc-02136-M

        (E.D.N.C. May 26, 2022). 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

                                                        2