LAW.coLAW.co

ABDUL SABUR v. UNITED STATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-05-28No. No. 21-6047

Summary

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Abdul-Sabur's § 2241 habeas petition was affirmed.

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur sought to challenge his 46-month sentence for mailing a threatening communication by filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, invoking the savings clause that permits such challenges when a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective. The relevant legal standard requires that a prisoner demonstrate settled law existed at sentencing, that law subsequently changed and was made retroactively applicable, the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping rules for successive § 2255 motions, and the legal change now constitutes a fundamental defect in the sentence.

The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition. The court declined oral argument, finding the written materials sufficient to resolve the issues presented.

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

Key issues

  • Applicability of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) for federal habeas review
  • Standards for establishing that a § 2255 motion is inadequate or ineffective to challenge a sentence
  • Requirements for retroactive application of changed law in collateral review proceedings

Procedural posture

Abdul-Sabur appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition challenging his federal sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Wakeel Abdul-Sabur appeals the district courts order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his 46-month sentence for mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876, by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his 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).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Abdul-Saburs motion for summary disposition and affirm the district courts dismissal of the § 2241 petition. Abdul-Sabur v. United States, No. 7:20-cv-00501-GEC-PMS, 2020 WL 7630713 (W.D. Va. Dec. 22, 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.