Court Opinion

ID: 4527142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-20 19:00:44.586065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:38.066144
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7500

EDDIE KODELL GOODWIN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN MACKELBURG,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-01816-HMH)

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

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Kodell Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Eddie Kodell Goodwin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Goodwin’s 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which Goodwin 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. Goodwin v. Mackelburg, No. 0:19-cv-01816-HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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

                                              2