Moore v. Streeval

Full title: OPIO DIARRA MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JASON C. STREEVAL…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 29, 2022

No. 21-7474 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 2022)

Opinion

21-7474

03-29-2022

OPIO DIARRA MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN JASON C. STREEVAL, Respondent - Appellee.

Opio Diarra Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: March 24, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cv-00551-MFU-JCH)

Opio Diarra Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Opio Diarra Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he 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, following the Supreme Court's decision in Greer v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error in the district court's determination that Moore failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging his conviction. We thus affirm the order. Moore v. Streeval, No. 7:20-cv-00551-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2021). 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