Filed: Apr. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41132 Conference Calendar GASPAR GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-542 - - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gaspar Garcia, federal prisoner # 64529-079, appeals from the district court’s judgment dism
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41132 Conference Calendar GASPAR GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-542 - - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gaspar Garcia, federal prisoner # 64529-079, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41132
Conference Calendar
GASPAR GARCIA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CV-542
- - - - - - - - - -
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gaspar Garcia, federal prisoner # 64529-079, appeals from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his application for a
writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Because Garcia’s application challenged the validity of his
sentence, his challenge should be brought only under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, unless he made a showing that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided
an inadequate and ineffective remedy. See Cox v. Warden, Fed.
Detention Ctr.,
911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Garcia
fails to make this necessary showing with his argument that,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-41132
-2-
because Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), was rendered
after he had filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and because the
stringent requirements for filing successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motions would prevent him from raising a challenge to his
sentence based on Apprendi in a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,
it is in effect an inadequate remedy. This argument is without
merit. The Apprendi decision is limited to facts that increase a
defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
Id., 120 S.
Ct. at 2362-63. Because Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of
marijuana, the maximum sentence was life in prison. 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A). His sentence of 151 months is below the
statutory maximum. Apprendi does not apply.
The district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
application is AFFIRMED.