OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Hartman Conner, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his action challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Conner filed his claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Because he was challenging his sentence, the district court construed his action as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion and denied relief on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Conner seeks to challenge the validity of his drug conspiracy conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Even if Appren-di claims are cognizable under § 2241, Conner’s sixty-eight-month sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine 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), petition for cert, filed, Aug. 16, 2001 (No. 01-5838). 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.