Luke Patterson v. R. Wolfe ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7630
LUKE D. PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. M. WOLFE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00075-GMG-RWT)
Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luke D. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luke D. Patterson, 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 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 affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Patterson v. Wolfe, No. 3:21-cv-00075-GMG-
RWT (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 4, 2021). 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