Jerome Capelton v. Warden, No. 15-6021 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6021 JEROME CAPELTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee.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 HARRIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, October 26, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
