Case ID: f-appx_14/html/0233-02.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. Michael LEWIS, a/k/a Mike Lewis, a/k/a Mike Lou, a/k/a Big Mike, a/k/a Mike, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6807.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2001.
    Decided July 20, 2001.
    
      Michael Lewis, pro se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Lewis 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. We decline to consider Lewis’ claim that 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) is unconstitutional, presented for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lewis, Nos. CR-97-184-V; CA-00-379-3-1-V (W.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 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. 
      
      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.