Brian Boulb v. Acting Warden Vareen ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7828
BRIAN K. BOULB,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ACTING WARDEN VAREEN, FCI Edgefield,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:19-cv-02177-RMG)
Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian K. Boulb, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian K. Boulb, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Boulb’s 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition, in which Boulb sought to challenge his sentence by way of
the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). 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 affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Boulb v. Acting Warden Vareen, No. 0:19-cv-
02177-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2019). 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