Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 F. App'x 705

In Re: Brown v.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 13, 2003

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-02-13

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2003

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Calderon v. Thompson · San-Miguel v. Dove

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-02-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Dovon Brown, a federal inmate, filed this petition for a writ of error seeking to have this court recall its mandate dismissing the appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See United States v. Brown, No. 00-7254, 2000 WL 1707272 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2000) (unpublished). In the alternative, Brown requests that this court allow him to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). In his petition, Brown alleges that his conviction and sentence are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and this court’s cases applying Apprendi. Brown has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying recall of the mandate. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Moreover, we have held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable in a § 2241 petition. See San-Miguel v. Dove, 291 F.3d 257, 261 n. 2 (4th Cir.2002). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Brown’s petition for writ of error. 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.

¶2 PETITION DENIED.

/55/fappx/705 · .json · Public domain