Henry Lo Carter v. United States , 22 F. App'x 692 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2298
    ___________
    Henry Lo Carter,                          *
    *
    Appellant,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                  * District of Minnesota.
    *
    United States of America,                 * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                    *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 6, 2001
    Filed: December 11, 2001
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Henry Lo Carter is serving a 210-month term of imprisonment following his
    guilty plea to a crack-cocaine offense. See United States v. Carter, 
    91 F.3d 1196
    ,
    1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). In this 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     proceeding, Carter
    claimed that his sentence was unlawful under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000), and that the remedy under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     was inadequate or ineffective to
    test the legality of his detention. The district court1 denied relief, and Carter appeals.
    1
    The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J.
    Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    Even if his claim were cognizable in this collateral proceeding--which it is not,
    see United States v. Moss, 
    252 F.3d 993
    , 999-1003 (8th Cir. 2001) (concerning
    Apprendi); United States v. Lurie, 
    207 F.3d 1075
    , 1077 (8th Cir. 2000) (concerning
    whether § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective”)--relief would not be available
    to Carter, see 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(C) (20 years imprisonment authorized for offense
    involving unspecified quantity of schedule I or II drugs); United States v. Aguayo-
    Delgado, 
    220 F.3d 926
    , 934 (8th Cir.) (no Apprendi error where sentence was within
    range authorized by offense of conviction without regard to quantity), cert. denied,
    
    531 U.S. 1026
     (2000).
    Accordingly, we affirm. Carter’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-