Case Name: Andre CHUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John OWENS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-08
Citations: 373 F. App'x 344
Docket Number: No. 09-7962
Parties: Andre CHUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John OWENS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
Andre CHUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John OWENS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7962.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2010.
Decided: April 8, 2010.
Andre Chung, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 2009 WL 3271261 (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, 105 S.Ct. 2103, 85 L.Ed.2d 462 (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, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002); Slezak v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir.1994).