
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Dennis OLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7531.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 9, 2002.
    Michael Dennis Olds, Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Dennis Olds appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his action challenging his conviction and 168-month sentence in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Olds filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where he is confined. The court construed the action as one under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), and transferred it to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the court in which Olds was convicted and sentenced. Because Olds previously filed a § 2255 motion, the court dismissed Olds’ action without prejudice because he failed to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. We find no reversible error in the district court’s order. To the extent that Olds’ Apprendi claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), Olds’ 168-month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999), does not violate Apprendi. See United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc) (finding no Apprendi error where sentence for conspiracy to commit drug offense involving unspecified drug quantity was under twenty years), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 309, — L.Ed.2d -(2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice. 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.

AFFIRMED.  