Isaac Lamont Williams v. Justin Andrews

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6419
ISAAC LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02254-D)
Submitted: September 24, 2021 Decided: October 8, 2021
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Lamont Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence by way
of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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. Williams v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02254-D
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 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

-- 2 of 2 --