Jerrell Antonio Roberts v. Bryan Dobbs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7651
JERRELL ANTONIO ROBERTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN DOBBS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (9:21-cv-00004-JD)
Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 25, 2022
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerrell Antonio Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jerrell Antonio Roberts, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction Roberts’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Roberts sought to
challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) 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, given Roberts’ concession that he has not yet
filed a § 2255 motion relevant to the challenged conviction, we find no reversible error in
the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Roberts’ § 2241
petition. See Marlowe v. Warden, FCI Hazelton, 6 F.4th 562, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2021)
(reiterating that “[t]he Section 2255 remedy is not rendered inadequate or ineffective
merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision, or
because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a Section 2255 motion” (cleaned
up)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because 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 --