How about Nicea I? Constantinople I? (The first was called by Constantine I, emporer of Rome. The second by Theodosius I)
Chalcedon was not called by Rome, but was presided by Paschanius, who was the Pope's legate.
Constantinople is generally regarded as the eastern empire. Constantine was never the bishop of Rome. In fact the Catholics still don't accept all the canons of some councils specifically because the Bishop of Rome had so little involvement.
(Constantinope I from NewAdvent.org)
"The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.
The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."