Court Opinion

ID: 4517097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-03-17 19:00:21.085818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:12.928871
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7681

DARVIS ADIB SANTIESTEBAN,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02036-BO)

Submitted: March 12, 2020                                         Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darvis Adib Santiesteban, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darvis Adib Santiesteban, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition, in which he sought to

challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018), and

denying his motion for reconsideration. 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.             Santiesteban v. Andrews, No.

5:18-hc-02036-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 8, 2019; Oct. 30, 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