Court Opinion

ID: 9365149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:43.798498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.452504
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7101      Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7101

        LARRY ANTONIO SIMMONS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        A. W. WINGFIELD, Acting Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:21-cv-02599-BHH)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Antonio Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7101       Doc: 7        Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry Antonio Simmons, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice for lack

        of jurisdiction Simmons’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his

        career offender 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

        for the reasons stated by the district court. Simmons v. Wingfield, No. 0:21-cv-02599-BHH

        (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 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