Banks v. Wingfield

Full title: GERALD LEE BANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. W. WINGFIELD, Acting…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Sep 13, 2022

No. 22-6548 (4th Cir. Sep. 13, 2022)

Opinion

22-6548

09-13-2022

GERALD LEE BANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. A. W. WINGFIELD, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee

Gerald Lee Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: September 8, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:21-cv-01928-BHH)

Gerald Lee Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Gerald Lee Banks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Banks' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Banks sought to challenge his sentence 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Banks v. Wingfield, No. 0:21-cv-01928-BHH (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2022). 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