Devone Best v. Justin Andrews ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6102
DEVONE SHARNELL BEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02187-FL)
Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devone Sharnell Best, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Devone Sharnell Best, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his
conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant
to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or 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
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, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Best v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02187-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2019). 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