Best v. Andrews

Full title: DEVONE SHARNELL BEST, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 19, 2020

No. 20-6102 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-6102

06-19-2020

DEVONE SHARNELL BEST, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Devone Sharnell Best, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02187-FL) Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devone Sharnell Best, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Devone Sharnell Best, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or 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 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Best v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02187-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 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