Case ID: f-appx_18/html/0173-02.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. Guy Carmichael CRENSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-6620.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 31, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 13, 2001.
    
      Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, pro se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appel-lee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Guy Crenshaw seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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 on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Crenshaw, Nos. CR-96-47; CA-99-424-7 (W.D.Va. Apr. 7, 2000). Crenshaw has also raised a claim for the first time on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in light of Appren-di v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). 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. Accordingly, Crenshaw’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable. 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.