Jamie Capalbo v. B. Antonelli ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7063
JAMIE NEIL CAPALBO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. M. ANTONELLI,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01946-TMC)
Submitted: December 18, 2020 Decided: December 31, 2020
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamie Neil Capalbo, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Neil Capalbo, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Capalbo’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition in which Capalbo sought to challenge his sentence and one of his
convictions by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a
prisoner may challenge his conviction and 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, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). In addition,
[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. Capalbo v. Antonelli, No. 1:19-cv-01946-TMC
(D.S.C. June 29, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3