U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2019

David Green v. Justin Andrews

David Green v. Justin Andrews
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 5, 2019

David Green v. Justin Andrews

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6264

DAVID GLENN GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02196-FL)

Submitted: June 25, 2019 Decided: August 5, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: David Glenn Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on Green’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition in which Green sought to challenge his conviction by way of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) savings clause. 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 [or] 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Green v. Andrews, No. 5:18-hc-02196-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2019). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.