Felix Okafor v. Bryan Antonelli ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7312
FELIX A. OKAFOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00121-JPB)
Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix A. Okafor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix A. Okafor, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Okafor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition in which Okafor sought to challenge his convictions and sentence 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).
Additionally,
[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. Okafor v. Antonelli, No. 5:20-cv-00121-JPB
(N.D.W. Va. Aug. 25, 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