Darrell Harris v. Warden Hudgins

21-7693Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 29, 2022

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7693
DARRELL HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HUDGINS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00096-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Harris, 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 conviction by way of the
savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his
conviction and 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 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, we affirm
the district court’s order. Harris v. Hudgins, No. 1:20-cv-00096-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va.
Nov. 15, 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 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.