UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 20-6102


DEVONE SHARNELL BEST,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02187-FL)


Submitted: June 16, 2020                                          Decided: June 19, 2020


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Devone Sharnell Best, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Devone Sharnell Best, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his

conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant

to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction or 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
       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, 

, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).

       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. Best v. Andrews, No. 5:19-hc-02187-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 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