Eye v. Streeval

Full title: GARY EYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN J. C. STREEVAL…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 29, 2022

No. 21-7729 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2022)

Opinion

21-7729

04-29-2022

GARY EYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN J. C. STREEVAL, Respondent-Appellee.

Gary Eye, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: April 26, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cv-00272-MFU-JCH)

Gary Eye, Appellant Pro Se.

Laura Day Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Gary Eye, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined that Eye may not challenge the validity of his convictions and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Eye v. Streeval, No. 7:20-cv-00272-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2021; filed Dec. 8, 2021, and entered Dec. 9, 2021). 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.