Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Anderson v. Gal, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jerry J. Anderson's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court held that the fact that Anderson could not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not render that section inadequate to permit proceeding under § 2241. Additionally, the Court held that the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey upon which Anderson's claim was based is not retroactively applicable in § 2241 petitions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6317

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jerry J. Anderson's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court held that the fact that Anderson could not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not render that section inadequate to permit proceeding under § 2241. Additionally, the Court held that the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey upon which Anderson's claim was based is not retroactively applicable in § 2241 petitions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Anderson v. Gal, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jerry J. Anderson's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court held that the fact that Anderson could not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 did not render that section inadequate to permit proceeding under § 2241. Additionally, the Court held that the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey upon which Anderson's claim was based is not retroactively applicable in § 2241 petitions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6317

    JERRY J. ANDERSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVEN GAL, Warden of FCI - Estill; UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-3895-2-12)

    Submitted:

    May 27, 2004

    Decided:

    June 3, 2004

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jerry J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry
    district

    J.

    courts

    Anderson,
    order

    federal

    accepting

    the

    prisoner,

    appeals

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under


    28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000).

    As the district court recognized, the

    fact that Andersons petition could not proceed under 28 U.S.C.


    2255 (2000) does not necessarily render that section inadequate
    so as to permit Anderson to proceed under 2241.
    115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997).

    See In re Vial,

    Moreover, the decision in

    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), upon which Andersons
    claim

    is

    petitions.

    based,

    is

    not

    retroactively

    applicable

    in

    2241

    See San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257, 260-61 & n.2 (4th

    Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 938 (2002).


    the district courts decision.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    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 -

    You might also like