Court Opinion

ID: 4422901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-05 19:00:20.204869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:48.930343
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-6264

DAVID GLENN GREEN,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02196-FL)

Submitted: June 25, 2019                                          Decided: August 5, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Glenn Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on Green’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition in which Green sought to challenge

his conviction by way of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) savings clause. 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 [or] 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, although

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Green v. Andrews, No. 5:18-hc-02196-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 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