Henry Richardson v. Christopher Gomez ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6953
    HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00812-HEH)
    Submitted: December 17, 2020                                Decided: December 22, 2020
    Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Henry Paul Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
    relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions by
    way of the savings clause in 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    . Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may
    challenge his convictions 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,
    
    226 F.3d 328
    , 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. Richardson v. Gomez, No. 3:19-cv-00812-HEH
    (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2020). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6953

Filed Date: 12/22/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2020