UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 20-6487


MICHAEL SEAN BRECHT,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN, FCI McDowell,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00054)


Submitted: July 23, 2020                                          Decided: July 28, 2020


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Sean Brecht, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Doyle Boggess, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Sean Brecht, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brecht’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2018) petition in which Brecht 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, 

, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).

       We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Brecht v. Warden, No. 1:19-cv-00054 (S.D.

W. Va. Mar. 30, 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.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED




                                              2