David Glenn Green v. Justin F. Andrew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999790780-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00097-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999937019]. Mailed to: David Glenn Green. [16-6421]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6421 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6421 DAVID GLENN GREEN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. JUSTIN F. ANDREWS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00097-FDW) Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: September 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6421 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: David Glenn Green appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. Green contends that he is no longer a career offender after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). However, Green received mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (2012). a As such, his sentence was not driven by his career offender status. While Green contends that he was incorrectly sentenced under § 3559(c), we hold that this claim is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Accordingly, (2012), although given we the grant facts leave to of Green’s proceed pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. in case. forma 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?