Peter Liounis v. Robert Hudgins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6526
PETER LIOUNIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HUDGINS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00092-GMG)
Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Liounis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Peter Liounis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Liounis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings
clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions
and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would
be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court
correctly determined that Liounis may not challenge the validity of his convictions and
sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains
criminal, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a
retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler,
886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Liounis v. Hudgins, No. 3:20-cv-00092-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 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 --