Case ID: f-appx_54/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EBEL, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert D. GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. N.L. CONNOR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-3288.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 10, 2003.
    Robert D. Gray, Leavenworth, KS, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Eric F. Melgren, U.S. Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before EBEL, LUCERO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Robert D. Gray, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the District Court for the District of Kansas. Gray wishes to retroactively challenge his sentence in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

The district court dismissed Gray’s petition as improperly filed under § 2241. For substantially the same reasons as stated by the district court in its Order of July 1, 2002, dismissing the appeal, we AFFIRM the dismissal.

Petitioner also moves this court to grant summary reversal due to the Respondent N.L. Connor’s failure to file a response brief. We deny this motion because the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide no such remedy for the failure to file a response brief. See Fed. R.App. P. 31 (consequence of appellee’s failure to file response brief is waiver of right to oral argument without the court’s permission). 
      
       After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.