Legal Research AI

Larry Cochran v. Warden

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date filed: 2021-11-22
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases

                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 21-7264


LARRY COCHRAN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00220-JKB)


Submitted: November 18, 2021                                Decided: November 22, 2021


Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Cochran, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Larry Cochran, 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 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 find no reversible error. Therefore, 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