Joe B. Russell, Jr. v. Warden Justin Andrews

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7026
JOE B. RUSSELL, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JUSTIN ANDREWS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02276-BO)
Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: March 3, 2023
Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe B. Russell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joe B. Russell, Jr., 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 sentence by way of
the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge
his 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).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
Russell v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02276-BO (E.D.N.C. July 8, 2022). We also deny
Russell’s motion to appoint counsel and to invite amicus briefing. We deny Russell’s
motion for 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 --