Opinion
20-7237
09-27-2021
DEMETRIUS PULLINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. B. DOBBS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Demetrius Pullins, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 31, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-03492-JFA)
Demetrius Pullins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Pullins, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Pullins' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Pullins 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, following the Supreme Court's decision in Greer v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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