Court Opinion

ID: 9352362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:39.376087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:37.467932
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6771      Doc: 18         Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6771

        KEWIA TYRONE HUNTER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        RICHARD HUDGINS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00004-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kewia Tyrone Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6771      Doc: 18          Filed: 01/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kewia Tyrone Hunter, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to

        challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to

        § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus

        pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the

        legality of a prisoner’s detention.” Hahn v. Moseley, 931 F.3d 295, 301 (4th Cir. 2019).

        “In evaluating substantive claims under the savings clause, . . . we look to the substantive

        law of the circuit where a defendant was convicted.” Id. But “we apply our procedural

        law,” id., “in determining whether to grant habeas relief under the savings clause,” id. at

        300. Thus, to challenge his sentence under § 2241, Hunter must establish that:

               (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court
               established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct
               appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law
               changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the
               prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for
               second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the
               sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental
               defect.

        United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).

               Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Hunter fails to satisfy the Wheeler

        standard. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Hunter’s motions to appoint counsel and to

        stay the proceedings.    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6771      Doc: 18        Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3