Court Opinion

ID: 9404697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 21:00:33.262904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.268517
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6364      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6364

        ARSENIO C. BRUNDIDGE,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN JASON C. STREEVAL,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00553-NKM-JCH)

        Submitted: June 7, 2023                                           Decided: June 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Arsenio C. Brundidge, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6364      Doc: 17          Filed: 06/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Arsenio C. Brundidge, 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. Brundidge contends that

        his conviction is invalid following Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019)

        (holding that conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a) requires proof that defendant

        knew of his prohibited status). However, because Brundidge was convicted under the

        penalty provision found in § 924(e)(1), rather than § 924(a), Rehaif has no effect on his

        conviction. Cf. In re McNeill, __ F.4th __, No. 20-159, 2023 WL 3573557, at *5-6

        (4th Cir. May 22, 2023). Thus, Brundidge has not established a substantive change in the

        law after which the conduct for which he was convicted—possessing a firearm after having

        previously been convicted of three violent felonies or serious drug offenses—is no longer

        criminal.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6364      Doc: 17         Filed: 06/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                     3