Christopher Lewis v. Warden Brian K. Dobbs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6274
CHRISTOPHER LEWIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BRIAN K. DOBBS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00862-BHH)
Submitted: October 13, 2021 Decided: October 25, 2021
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lewis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition in which Lewis sought to challenge his 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, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Greer
v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. 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 --