Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06021/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Capelton
Appellant
Warden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6021

JEROME CAPELTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (6:14-cv-01997-RBH)

Submitted: September 22, 2016 Decided: October 26, 2016

Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Capelton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6021 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Capelton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 

petition. “[W]e may affirm a district court’s ruling on any 

ground apparent in the record,” United States ex rel. Drakeford 

v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015), and we may take 

judicial notice of court records, see City of Charleston v. A 

Fisherman’s Best, Inc., 310 F.3d 155, 172 (4th Cir. 2002). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has 

recently noted that Capelton has three predicate convictions for 

controlled substance offenses supporting his career offender 

status. Capelton v. United States, No. 15-2163 (1st Cir. 

Nov. 30, 2015). Thus, even assuming Capelton may successfully 

challenge his predicate larceny conviction in a § 2241

proceeding, he would remain a career offender based on the 

convictions identified by the First Circuit, and he would be 

entitled to no relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. Capelton v. Warden, No. 6:14-cv-01997-RBH 

(D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6021 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 2