Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07962/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07962-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7962

ANDRE CHUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN OWENS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(3:09-cv-02115-TLW)

Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Chung, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7962 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre Chung, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006)

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* 

Chung v. Owens, No. 3:09-cv-02115-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2009). 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

 * In addition to the claims addressed by the district court, 

Chung contended that a negligent homicide conviction was 

improperly treated as a crime of violence, adversely impacting 

both his advisory Guidelines range and his custody 

classification. Section 2241 is not the proper vehicle for 

challenging alleged inaccuracies in a presentence report. See

United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 457 (1985) (Stevens,

J., concurring). With respect to the conviction’s impact on his 

custody classification, Chung has failed to state a claim. See

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39-40 (2002); Slezak v. Evatt, 21 

F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir. 1994).

Appeal: 09-7962 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2