Burch v. United States Department of Justice ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    VERNON D. BURCH,                      
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF                      No. 01-7929
    JUSTICE; BUREAU OF PRISONS; DAN L.
    DOVE, Warden,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-01-840-2-24AJ)
    Submitted: March 12, 2002
    Decided: May 22, 2002
    Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Vernon D. Burch, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                          BURCH v. USDOJ
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Vernon D. Burch appeals the district court’s order denying relief
    on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (1994) petition. Burch, who had previously
    filed an unsuccessful 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2001) motion
    and an unsuccessful 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2244
     (West 1994 & Supp. 2001)
    motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, asserted
    that his conviction and sentence were invalid under Cage v. Louisi-
    ana, 
    498 U.S. 39
     (1990), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000). Because the Supreme Court decided Cage before Burch was
    convicted, we find that he could not raise this claim under § 2241. In
    re Jones, 
    226 F.3d 328
    , 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Moreover, because
    his sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum for his offense of
    conviction, it does not implicate the concerns raised by Apprendi.
    United States v. Kinter, 
    235 F.3d 192
    , 201 (4th Cir. 2000), cert.
    denied, 
    532 U.S. 937
     (2001); United States v. Angle, 
    254 F.3d 514
    ,
    518 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    70 U.S.L.W. 3244
     (U.S.
    Oct. 2, 2001) (No. 01-5838). We therefore affirm the district court’s
    order denying relief on Burch’s § 2241 petition.* We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    *We grant Burch’s motion to supplement the record.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-7929

Judges: Widener, Traxler, King

Filed Date: 5/22/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024