United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30142
Conference Calendar
REGGIE L. McCOY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CARL CASTERLINE; JOHN ASHCROFT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2274
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reggie L. McCoy, federal prisoner #11732-018, appeals from
the order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. McCoy moves
to supplement his brief; the motion is DENIED.
McCoy contends that the district court sentenced him based
on a drug quantity and on a prior juvenile drug case that were
not alleged in the indictment or presented to the jury. He
argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
district court’s lack of jurisdiction to impose the sentence;
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30142
-2-
that he was deprived of his right to be tried on the charges in
his indictment; that his indictment was constructively amended;
and that his right against double jeopardy was violated. He
relies on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), to contend that
he relies on a new rule of constitutional law.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), requires
that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact
that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490. Apprendi
does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002),
cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003). Ring, a case involving
the death penalty, is inapplicable to McCoy’s case. See Ring,
536 U.S. at 609. McCoy cannot make a showing sufficient to
invoke the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to pursue
28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief. See Wesson, 305 F.3d at 347.
AFFIRMED. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED.