Jerome Capelton v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-01997-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999955406]. [15-6021]

Appeal: 15-6021

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6021

JEROME CAPELTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (6:14-cv-01997-RBH)

Submitted:

September 22, 2016

Before KEENAN and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

October 26, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Capelton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6021

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerome Capelton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s
judge

order
and

accepting

denying

petition.

the

relief

recommendation
on

his

28

of

the

U.S.C.

magistrate

§ 2241

(2012)

“[W]e may affirm a district court’s ruling on any

ground apparent in the record,” United States ex rel. Drakeford
v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015), and we may take
judicial notice of court records, see City of Charleston v. A
Fisherman’s Best, Inc., 310 F.3d 155, 172 (4th Cir. 2002).

The

United

has

States

Court

of

Appeals

for

the

First

Circuit

recently noted that Capelton has three predicate convictions for
controlled
status.

substance
Capelton

Nov. 30, 2015).
challenge

he

v.

supporting

United

States,

his

No.

career

15-2163

offender

(1st

Cir.

Thus, even assuming Capelton may successfully

his

proceeding,

offenses

predicate
would

larceny

remain

a

conviction

career

offender

in

a

based

§ 2241
on

the

convictions identified by the First Circuit, and he would be
entitled
court’s

to

no

relief.

order.

Accordingly,

Capelton

(D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014).

v.

Warden,

we

affirm

No.

the

district

6:14-cv-01997-RBH

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2