Christopher Lewis v. Brian Dobbs, No. 21-6274 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6274 CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN BRIAN K. DOBBS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00862-BHH) Submitted: October 13, 2021 Decided: October 25, 2021 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lewis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Lewis sought to challenge his conviction by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction 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 prisoner’s 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, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.
