Court Opinion

ID: 4700544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-01 19:03:12.46095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:53.958308
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7375

ROY M. BELFAST,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN BRECKON,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00453-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: June 29, 2021                                          Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy M. Belfast, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Roy M. Belfast, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge his convictions by way

of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a subsequent order denying Belfast’s Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Belfast v. Breckon, No. 7:18-cv-00453-MFU-

RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2019; Sept. 1, 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