Creadell Hubbard v. Christopher Zych ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7863
CREADELL HUBBARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cv-00002-GEC-PMS)
Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Creadell Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Creadell Hubbard, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he 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. Hubbard v. Zych, No. 7:15-cv-00002-GEC-
PMS (W.D. Va. Nov. 7, 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