UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7776

WAKEEL ABDUL-SABUR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00107-GEC-PMS)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his

(2018) petition—in which he sought to challenge his 46-month sentence

for mailing a threatening communication, in violation of

(2018), by way

of the savings clause in

(2018)—and its order denying his motion for

reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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,

(4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied,

(2019).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Abdul-Sabur v. United States, No. 7:18-cv-

00107-GEC-PMS (W.D. Va. Aug. 27 & Nov. 21, 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

2