BOBBITT v. ENTZEL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-09-13No. No. 20-6860

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying Bobbitt's § 2241 habeas petition challenging his conviction and sentence.

LaFawn Bobbitt, a federal prisoner, sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by invoking the savings clause in § 2255(e). This provision allows a prisoner to use § 2241 to challenge a conviction or sentence when a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective. The court outlined two separate frameworks: one for inadequacy of § 2255 when challenging sentences (requiring that law was settled at sentencing, subsequently changed retroactively, the prisoner cannot meet gatekeeping requirements for successive motions, and the sentence now presents a fundamental defect), and another for inadequacy when challenging convictions (requiring that law was settled at conviction, subsequently changed so the conduct is no longer criminal, and the prisoner cannot satisfy gatekeeping provisions because the new rule is not constitutional). Upon reviewing the record, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's rejection of Bobbitt's petition and affirmed the lower court's decision without oral argument.

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

Key issues

When § 2255 motions are inadequate or ineffective for challenging sentences under the savings clause
When § 2255 motions are inadequate or ineffective for challenging convictions under the savings clause
Application of retroactive changes in substantive law to collateral review proceedings
Gatekeeping requirements for successive § 2255 motions

Procedural posture

A federal prisoner appealed the district court's denial of a § 2241 habeas petition seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence through the savings clause of § 2255(e).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

LaFawn D. Bobbitt, a federal prisoner, appeals the district courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bobbitts 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Bobbitt sought to challenge one of his convictions and his 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 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 prisoners 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).

[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).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order. Bobbitt v. Entzel, 5:19-cv-00030-JPB, 2020 WL 2214175 (N.D.W. Va. May 7, 2020). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.