Difankh Asar, a federal prisoner, appeals the district courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Asars 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Asar sought to challenge his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction
by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or 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 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 prisoners 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) (emphasis added).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the stated by the district court, Asar v. Travis, No. 6:20-cv-00394-BHH, 2020 WL 3843638 (D.S.C. July 8, 2020), but modify the courts order to reflect dismissal without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.