Opinion
20-7548
02-24-2022
ALAN R. MANN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID L. YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee.
Alan R. Mann, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 29, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00548)
Alan R. Mann, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Alan R. Mann, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction Mann's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Mann sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) 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).
The district court required Mann to demonstrate that the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, although that is not a part of our In re Jones test. Nevertheless, following Greer v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 2090 (2021), we find no reversible error in the district court's ultimate conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mann's § 2241 petition. 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