David Glenn Green v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6264
DAVID GLENN GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02196-FL)
Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: August 5, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David Glenn Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on Green’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition in which Green sought to challenge
his conviction by way of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) savings clause. 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 [or] 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. Accordingly, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Green v. Andrews, No. 5:18-hc-02196-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 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

-- 2 of 2 --