Case ID: f-appx_9/html/0109-01.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. Randy Eugene WOODWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2001.
    Decided May 4, 2001.
    
      Randy Eugene Woodward, pro se.
    Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Randy Eugene Woodward 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 on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Woodward, Nos. CR-95-30; CR-97-51; CA-99-722-7 (W.D.Va. July 6, 2000).

For the first time on appeal, Woodward raises new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, except under narrow circumstances not present here. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice). We therefore decline to address these claims.

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 also decline to address Woodward’s claim that his sentence is invalid in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2.348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 150 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.