The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-7729•Gary Eye v. Warden J. C. Streeval
21-7729Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 29, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7729
GARY EYE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. C. STREEVAL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cv-00272-MFU-JCH)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Eye, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Gary Eye, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction his 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,
and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 Eye 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. Eye v. Streeval, No. 7:20-cv-00272-MFU-JCH
(W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2021; filed Dec. 8, 2021, and entered Dec. 9, 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.