From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodwin v. Mackelburg

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2020
No. 19-7500 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-7500

04-20-2020

EDDIE KODELL GOODWIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MACKELBURG, Respondent - Appellee.

Eddie Kodell Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-01816-HMH) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Kodell Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Eddie Kodell Goodwin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Goodwin's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which Goodwin sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Goodwin v. Mackelburg, No. 0:19-cv-01816-HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2019). 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


Summaries of

Goodwin v. Mackelburg

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 20, 2020
No. 19-7500 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)
Case details for

Goodwin v. Mackelburg

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE KODELL GOODWIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MACKELBURG…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 20, 2020

Citations

No. 19-7500 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020)

Citing Cases

Turner v. Warden, FCI Edgefield

United States v. Robinson, C/A No. 0:08-401-CMC, 2020 WL 1536224, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2020) ("as Defendant…

Covington v. Barnes

at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2019), affd, No. 197500, 2020 WL 1910479 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2020) (“Goodwin was…