Mikhael Dorise v. Warden Bragg ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7199
MIKHAEL DORISE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BRAGG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01881-JFA)
Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: June 4, 2021
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mikhael Dorise, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mikhael Dorise, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Dorise’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
in which Dorise 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, we deny as
unnecessary Dorise’s motion for a certificate of appealability and affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Dorise v. Bragg, No. 1:17-cv-01881-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 5,
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
2