Court Opinion

ID: 9444440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:00:59.797966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.812234
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7870      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-7870

        ALVIS DAMON WILLIAMS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. HUDGINS, Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00119-JPB)

        Submitted: July 17, 2023                                          Decided: August 2, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alvis Damon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Maximillian Fitzsimmons Nogay, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7870      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alvis Damon Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting

        the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Williams’

        28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

        conviction under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), by way of the savings

        clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). The Supreme Court has squarely held “that § 2255(e)’s

        savings clause does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory

        interpretation to circumvent [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996]’s

        restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a § 2241 petition.” Jones v.

        Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1864 (2023). Like the petitioner in Jones, Williams may not

        challenge his § 922(g)(1) conviction based on Rehaif through a § 2241 petition by way of

        § 2255(e)’s savings clause. See id. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion to remand

        and affirm the district court’s judgment. Williams v. Hudgins, No. 5:20-cv-00119-JPB

        (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 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