Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0151-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin CAMPFIELD, a/k/a Kevin Macon, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6627.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 21, 2001.
    Decided July 5, 2001.
    Kevin Campfield, pro se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    
      Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Kevin Campfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Campfield, Nos. CR-98-315; CA-01-622-CCB (D.Md. Mar. 27, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Campfield’s claim that his sentence is not proper in light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.