Bobby Rawlings v. United States ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7195
BOBBY LEE RAWLINGS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00087-FDW)
Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Lee Rawlings, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Lee Rawlings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his federal conviction by way of
the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
Rawlings’ motion for a certificate of appealability and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Rawlings v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-00087-FDW (W.D.N.C. July 21,
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