Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-28
Citations: 6 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 00-6458
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 184–184

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 28, 2001.
Andrew Rivera, pro se. John Michael Barton, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Rivera seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) as one filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), and denying the same as successive. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rivera, Nos. CR-94-723; CA-00-298-17-3 (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2000). 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.
DISMISSED.
Rivera, for the first time, asserts in his informal brief that his guilty plea and sentence are invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As with his claims below, because Rivera has already filed a prior § 2255 motion, he may not file a successive motion regarding this claim without first obtaining leave from this . Court via a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 2000) motion. To the extent that Rivera wishes to raise an Apprendi challenge under § 2241, this Court's opinion in no way impedes his ability to file another such motion in the district court where he is currently confined.