Opinion
20-7375
07-01-2021
ROY M. BELFAST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN BRECKON, Respondent-Appellee.
Roy M. Belfast, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 29, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00453-MFU-RSB)
Roy M. Belfast, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Roy M. Belfast, 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 convictions by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a subsequent order denying Belfast's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions 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. Belfast v. Breckon, No. 7:18-cv-00453-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2019; Sept. 1, 2020). 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.