Case Name: Vernon D. BURCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Bureau of Prisons; Dan L. Dove, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-22
Citations: 34 F. App'x 941
Docket Number: No. 01-7929
Parties: Vernon D. BURCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Bureau of Prisons; Dan L. Dove, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 941–942

Head Matter:
Vernon D. BURCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; Bureau of Prisons; Dan L. Dove, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 01-7929.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2002.
Decided May 22, 2002.
Vernon D. Burch, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Vernon D. Burch appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. Burch, who had previously filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion and an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp.2001) motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, asserted that his conviction and sentence were invalid under Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because the Supreme Court decided Cage before Burch was convicted, we find that he could not raise this claim under § 2241. In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.2000). Moreover, because his sentence did not exceed the statutory-maximum for his offense of conviction, it does not implicate the concerns raised by Apprendi. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001); United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 309, 151 L.Ed.2d 230 (2001) (No. 01-5838). We therefore affirm the district court's order denying relief on Burch's § 2241 petition. 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.
We grant Burch's motion to supplement the record.