Court Opinion

ID: 9400325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 21:00:35.371384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.578007
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7433      Doc: 15         Filed: 06/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7433

        RICHARD L. GATHERCOLE,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00384-MHL-MRC)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                              Decided: June 6, 2023

        Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard L. Gathercole, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7433      Doc: 15          Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard L. Gathercole, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders

        dismissing without prejudice 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 and denying his motion to

        reconsider. 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. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s orders. Gathercole v. United States, No. 3:22-cv-00384-MHL-MRC

        (E.D. Va. Sept. 19 & Dec. 13, 2022). We deny Gathercole’s motions for appointment of

        counsel and for bail/release pending appeal and 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