Court Opinion

ID: 6333377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-20 19:00:43.223248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:27.881100
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6815

BIVEN HUDSON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WOLFE,

                     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-00047-JPB)

Submitted: February 25, 2022                                      Decided: April 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Biven Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Biven Hudson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hudson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition in which Hudson sought to challenge his 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 discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. 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