Court Opinion

ID: 4910017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-09 19:01:15.214664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:22.160007
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7511

NISHON QUINTE RAINNER,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN FCI BENNETTSVILLE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:19-cv-02207-JMC)

Submitted: August 31, 2021                                   Decided: September 9, 2021

Before KING, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nishon Quinte Rainner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Nishon Quinte Rainner, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Rainner’s 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Rainner sought to challenge his convictions by way of the

savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his

convictions 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, following the Supreme Court’s decision in

Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm. 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