Santiesteban v. Andrews

Full title: DARVIS ADIB SANTIESTEBAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 17, 2020

No. 19-7681 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-7681

03-17-2020

DARVIS ADIB SANTIESTEBAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Darvis Adib Santiesteban, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02036-BO) Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darvis Adib Santiesteban, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Darvis Adib Santiesteban, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition, in which he sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018), and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Santiesteban v. Andrews, No. 5:18-hc-02036-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 8, 2019; Oct. 30, 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