UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRYANT KELLY PRIDE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
J. RAY ORMOND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00222-RBS-LRL)
Submitted: May 27, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryant Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Bryant Kelly Pride, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Pride’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition, in which Pride 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
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 and grant Pride’s pending motions to amend
and supplement his informal brief, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Pride v. Ormond, No. 2:19-cv-00222-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 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.