Washington v. Hudgins

Full title: TONY WASHINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD HUDGINS, Respondent …

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 22, 2021

No. 20-7286 (4th Cir. Jan. 22, 2021)

Opinion

No. 20-7286

01-22-2021

TONY WASHINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD HUDGINS, Respondent - Appellee.

Tony Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00086-JPB) Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Tony Washington, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Washington's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Washington 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Hudgins, No. 5:20-cv-00086-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 21, 2020). We also deny Washington's motion for transcripts at government expense. 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