Court Opinion

ID: 9375108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:15.656757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.163190
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6682      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6682

        ELIAS JUNIOR RODRIGUEZ,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DAVID LEU,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02228-FL)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elias Junior Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6682      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elias Junior Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction Rodriguez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

        in which he sought to challenge his 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) 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 in the district court’s

        conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly,

        we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriguez v. Leu, 5:21-hc-02228-FL

        (E.D.N.C. May 26, 2022). 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