Opinion
21-6526
08-27-2021
PETER LIOUNIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT HUDGINS, Respondent-Appellee.
Peter Liounis, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 24, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00092-GMG)
Peter Liounis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Peter Liounis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Liounis' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined that Liounis may not challenge the validity of his convictions and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Liounis v. Hudgins, No. 3:20-cv-00092-GMG (N.D. W.Va. Mar. 23, 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