Court Opinion

ID: 9376881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-04 21:00:17.310155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.994508
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7026      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7026

        JOE B. RUSSELL, JR.,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN JUSTIN ANDREWS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02276-BO)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: March 3, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joe B. Russell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7026       Doc: 16          Filed: 03/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joe B. Russell, Jr., 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 sentence by way of

        the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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, we affirm.

        Russell v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02276-BO (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2022). We also deny

        Russell’s motion to appoint counsel and to invite amicus briefing. We deny Russell’s

        motion for 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