IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60117 Conference Calendar

MICHAEL GEROME WESTON,

Petitioner-Appellant, versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01-CV-12-WS -------------------- December 11, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Gerome Weston, Mississippi prisoner # 04120-043,

challenges the district court’s dismissal of his

petition, in which he asserted that counsel had been ineffective

at sentencing and that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New

Jersey,

(2000). The district court determined that

it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under

because Weston challenged the validity of his sentence rather

than the manner in which it was being executed but had not

demonstrated that relief under

was inadequate.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-60117 -2-

Weston argues that dismissal was error and that his claims

were properly brought under

because Apprendi had

not been decided at the time he filed his

motion

and because he cannot meet the requirements for filing a

successive

motion. His arguments are

unconvincing.

As the district court determined,

provides

the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction

and sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre,

(5th Cir.

2000). Although Weston may pursue

relief upon a

showing that relief under

is inadequate, he has

failed to make such a showing. The fact that Weston cannot meet

the requirements for filing a successive

motion

is insufficient. See

. Additionally, Weston does not

present a prima facie Apprendi claim because the 176-month

sentence he received does not exceed the 20-year statutory

maximum for a cocaine-base-distribution offense involving

unaggravated drug quantities. See

(b)(1)(C) (West

Supp. 2000). Apprendi thus does not apply. See United States v.

Doggett,

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

(2001). That being so, this court will not address the

remainder of Weston’s arguments.

Weston has not demonstrated any error in the district

court’s judgment, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Weston’s motion

to amend his §

petition to supplement his No. 01-60117 -3-

Apprendi claim and his motion to supplement his reply brief are

DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.