Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6847 BENNY EDWARD LEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, L.S.C.I. Butner, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-167-5-3F) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6847 BENNY EDWARD LEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, L.S.C.I. Butner, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-167-5-3F) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6847
BENNY EDWARD LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. SCOTT DODRILL, Warden, L.S.C.I. Butner,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-167-5-3F)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benny Edward Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benny Edward Lee appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. We note that, even if the district court had jurisdiction
to review Lee’s claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466
(2000), the sentence would not be in error because his 108-month
sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum. See
United States v. Angle,
254 F.3d 514 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
2001
WL 995333 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 01-5838). Thus, any such claim
would lack merit. We affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Lee v. Dodrill, No. CA-01-167-5-3F (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2001). 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
2