Opinion
No. 21-6047
05-28-2021
WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.
Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00501-GEC-PMS) Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Wakeel Abdul-Sabur appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his 46-month sentence for mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876, 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 his detention.
[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (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).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Abdul-Sabur's motion for summary disposition and affirm the district court's dismissal of the § 2241 petition. Abdul-Sabur v. United States, No. 7:20-cv-00501-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 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