Case Name: Henry Lo CARTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-11
Citations: 22 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 01-2298
Parties: Henry Lo CARTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 692–692

Head Matter:
Henry Lo CARTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 01-2298.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2001.
Decided Dec. 11, 2001.
Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Henry Lo Carter is serving a 210-month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to a crack-cocaine offense. See United States v. Carter, 91 F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam). In this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding, Carter claimed that his sentence was unlawful under Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. The district court denied relief, and Carter appeals.
Even if his claim were cognizable in this collateral proceeding — which it is not, see United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 999-1003 (8th Cir.2001) (concerning Appren-di); United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir.2000) (concerning whether § 2255 remedy is "inadequate or ineffective") — relief would not be available to Carter, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (20 years imprisonment authorized for offense involving unspecified quantity of schedule I or II drugs); United States v. AguayoDelgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.) (no Apprendi error where sentence was within range authorized by offense of conviction without regard to quantity), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm. Carter's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.