USCA4 Appeal: 22-6777 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6777

PHILLIP LENARD NEAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, USP LEE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00632-MFU-JCH)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Lenard Neal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6777 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Lenard Neal, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his

petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction by

way of the savings clause in

. 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 and 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,

, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. Neal v. Warden, USP Lee, No. 7:21-cv-00632-

MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. filed Apr. 22, 2022 & entered Apr. 25, 2022). 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