ROLLINS v. WARDEN FCI PETERSBURG MEDIUM (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-14No. No. 21-6739

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying Rollins' § 2241 habeas petition because the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal and he did not identify a sentencing error severe enough to constitute a fundamental defect warranting relief.

Christopher Rollins, a federal inmate, sought to use a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his conviction and sentence, arguing that a motion under § 2255 would be inadequate. The magistrate judge rejected his petition, finding that Rollins did not qualify for relief under the savings clause that allows § 2241 challenges. The court agreed with the magistrate's reasoning on two grounds: the criminal conduct underlying his conviction remains illegal, and Rollins failed to show a sentencing error of such magnitude as to constitute a fundamental defect in his case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a prisoner may use § 2241 habeas corpus to challenge conviction and sentence when § 2255 motion would be adequate
What constitutes a 'fundamental defect' sufficient to invoke the savings clause in § 2255(e)
Whether sentencing as a career offender under an advisory Guidelines scheme can support habeas relief

Procedural posture

A federal prisoner appealed a magistrate judge's order denying his § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Christopher Rollins, a federal prisoner, appeals the magistrate judges order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction 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 magistrate judge correctly determined that Rollins may not challenge the validity of his conviction 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 sentencing error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018); see also Braswell v. Smith, 952 F.3d 441, 450 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[A] fundamental defect or a complete miscarriage of justice has not occurred where the petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under an advisory Guidelines scheme.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judges order. See Rollins v. Warden, No. 3:19-cv-00844-EWH, 2021 WL 860495 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.