Filed: Mar. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7901 CARL HEADLEY CHAMBERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1389-AM) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7901 CARL HEADLEY CHAMBERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-1389-AM) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl H..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7901
CARL HEADLEY CHAMBERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH M. BROOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-01-1389-AM)
Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 22, 2002
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Headley Chambers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Headley Chambers appeals the district court’s order de-
nying 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. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Chambers v. Brooks, No. CA-01-1389-AM (E.D.
Va. filed Oct. 11, 2001; entered Oct. 12, 2001); see also United
States v. Kinter,
235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding
that Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), does not apply to
a judge’s exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long
as a defendant’s sentence is not set beyond the maximum term
specified in the substantive statute), cert. denied,
532 U.S. 937
(2001). We also deny Chambers’ motion for a certificate of appeal-
ability. 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