Case ID: f-appx_15/html/0166-02.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. Harold Green McKINNON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7106.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 31, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 10, 2001.
    
      Harold Green McKinnon, pro se.
    Fenita Morris Shepard, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Harold Green McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) and his motion for reconsideration. 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. McKinnon, Nos. CR-91-56-BR; CA-99-462-5 BR (E.D.N.C. June 12 & July 10, 2001). We grant McKinnon’s motion to supplement the record. 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. 
      
      
         We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.