Tyrese D. Hyles v. MR. STREEVAL, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6745
TYRESE D. HYLES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MR. STREEVAL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00128-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrese D. Hyles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrese D. Hyles, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice 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. Pursuant to
§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or 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) (emphasis added).
[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) (emphasis added).
We have reviewed the record and find that Hyles’ claims meet neither the Wheeler
test nor the Jones test. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Hyles v. Streeval, No. 7:21-cv-00128-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2021). We deny
Hyles’ motion for bail or release pending appeal and dispense with oral argument because

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --