Gerald Lee Banks v. A. W. WINGFIELD, Acting Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6548
GERALD LEE BANKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. W. WINGFIELD, Acting Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:21-cv-01928-BHH)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Lee Banks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Lee Banks, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Banks’ 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Banks 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. Banks v. Wingfield, No. 0:21-cv-01928-BHH
(D.S.C. Apr. 19, 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

-- 2 of 2 --