Steven Stanley v. R. Hudgins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 27, 2022
• Docket: 22-6314
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6314

STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MR. R. HUDGINS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00152-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: October 21, 2022 Decided: October 27, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lamonte Stanley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lamonte Stanley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s 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 district court correctly determined that Stanley may

not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the

conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, 1 In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34

(4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law

affecting his sentence, 2 United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, while we grant Stanley’s motion to amend his informal brief, we affirm the

district court’s order. Stanley v. Hudgins, No. 1:19-cv-00152-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Feb.

22, 2022). 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

1 See United States v. Runyon, 994 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir. 2021). 2 See Jones v. Zych, 812 F. App’x 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 15-7399) (argued but unpublished); United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).