UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6419

ISAAC LAMONT WILLIAMS,

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-02254-D)

Submitted: September 24, 2021 Decided: October 8, 2021

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Isaac Lamont Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on 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. Williams v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02254-D

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2021). 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