UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6514

RONNIE VICTOR EVERETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02043-D)

Submitted: January 29, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Victor Everett , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ronnie Victor Everett, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his

petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence by

way of the savings clause in

. 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).

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. However, we modify the dismissal order,

Everett v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02043-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2020), to reflect dismissal

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as modified,

. 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 AS MODIFIED

2