Rodriguez v. Leu

Full title: ELIAS JUNIOR RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DAVID LEU…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 23, 2023

No. 22-6682 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2023)

Opinion

22-6682

02-23-2023

ELIAS JUNIOR RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DAVID LEU, Respondent-Appellee.

Elias Junior Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: February 21, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02228-FL)

Elias Junior Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Elias Junior Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction Rodriguez's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) 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 find no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez's § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriguez v. Leu, 5:21-hc-02228-FL (E.D. N.C. May 26, 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