Court Opinion

ID: 4647535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-12-29 20:00:42.021091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:41.043250
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7195

BOBBY LEE RAWLINGS,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00087-FDW)

Submitted: December 22, 2020                                Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Lee Rawlings, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Bobby Lee Rawlings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his federal 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. Accordingly, we deny

Rawlings’ motion for a certificate of appealability and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Rawlings v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-00087-FDW (W.D.N.C. July 21,

2020). 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