Court Opinion

ID: 9380005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 21:01:16.820309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.343178
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6654      Doc: 13         Filed: 03/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6654

        TIMOTHY WALKER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DONNA F. SMITH,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02071-FL)

        Submitted: December 30, 2022                                      Decided: March 15, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6654      Doc: 13         Filed: 03/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Timothy Walker, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, in which he sought to challenge his

        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

        the district court’s order. Walker v. Smith, No. 5:19-hc-02071-FL (W.D.N.C. Mar. 30,

        2022). We grant Walker’s motion to exceed the page limitations for his informal brief and

        deny his motion to appoint counsel. 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