Lorenzo Butts v. Justin Andrews

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6588
LORENZO BUTTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JUSTIN ANDREWS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard Ernest Myers, II, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02212-M)
Submitted: September 25, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Butts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Butts, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and judgment
dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge
his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a
prisoner may challenge his 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).
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. Butts v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02212-M (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2020). We deny Butts’
motion for appointment of counsel. 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