Court Opinion

ID: 6327855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-29 19:00:47.931704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:31.871000
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7630

LUKE D. PATTERSON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00075-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: March 24, 2022                                         Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luke D. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Luke D. Patterson, 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 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. Patterson v. Wolfe, No. 3:21-cv-00075-GMG-

RWT (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2021). 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