UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7500
EDDIE KODELL GOODWIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MACKELBURG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-01816-HMH)
Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddie Kodell Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Kodell Goodwin, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Goodwin’s 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which Goodwin sought to challenge his sentence by way
of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). 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, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Goodwin v. Mackelburg, No. 0:19-cv-01816-HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2019). 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