Roy M. Belfast, a federal prisoner, appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought to challenge his convictions by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a subsequent order denying Belfasts Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions 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).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Belfast v. Breckon, No. 7:18-cv-00453-MFU-RSB, 2019 WL 4455992, 2020 WL 5224222 (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2019; Sept. 1, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.