USCA4 Appeal: 22-6972 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6972

DONAVEON LIGHTBOURN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, USP HAZELTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00078-JPB)

Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donaveon Lightbourn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6972 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Donaveon Lightbourn, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

in part and rejecting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

Lightbourn’s

petition in which Lightbourn sought to challenge his

sentence by way of the savings clause in

. Lighbourn also appeals the

district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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

the district court’s order. Lightbourn v. Warden, No. 5:22-cv-00078-JPB (N.D.W. Va.

Aug. 4, 2022 & Aug. 22, 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