Gary Wilson v. Warden, No. 20-7480 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7480 GARY KOMPTON WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, USP Lee, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00216-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Kompton Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Kompton Wilson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his sentence 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 prisoner’s 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilson v. Warden, No. 7:20-cv-00216-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. Aug. 25, 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.