Dorise v. Bragg

Full title: MIKHAEL DORISE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BRAGG, Respondent …

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 4, 2021

No. 20-7199 (4th Cir. Jun. 4, 2021)

Opinion

20-7199

06-04-2021

MIKHAEL DORISE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BRAGG, Respondent - Appellee.

Mikhael Dorise, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: May 25, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 1:17-cv-01881-JFA Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Mikhael Dorise, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Mikhael Dorise, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Dorise's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Dorise 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 deny as unnecessary Dorise's motion for a certificate of appealability and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dorise v. Bragg, No. 1:17-cv-01881-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2020). 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