Henry Lo Carter v. United States ( 2001 )

  •                       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    United States of America,                 * [UNPUBLISHED]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.
           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.
          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-
    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
          Accordingly, we affirm. Carter’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
          A true copy.
                         CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.