Steven Martinez v. Bryan Antonelli, No. 20-6457 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6457 STEVEN MARTINEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden USP Hazelton; WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00059-GMG) Submitted: June 18, 2020 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 23, 2020 PER CURIAM: Steven Martinez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Martinez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions 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 Martinez may not challenge the validity of his convictions 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 retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martinez v. Antonelli, No. 3:19-cv-00059-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 11, 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.