UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 01-4014

RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, a/k/a

Raymond Rudone Ramsey,

Defendant-Appellee. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4077

RAYMOND JEROME FRANCIS, a/k/a

Raymond Rudone Ramsey,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CR-96-21, CA-00-141-1)

Submitted: December 7, 2001

Decided: January 23, 2002

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

No. 01-4014 reversed and remanded and No. 01-4077 affirmed by

unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas

E. Booth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil I. Jacobs, Rockville, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

These appeals arise from the district court’s orders granting in part

and denying in part relief on Raymond Jerome Francis’ motion filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and denying the Government’s motion to reconsider. For the reasons discussed below, we

affirm in No. 01-4077, and in No. 01-4014, we reverse the order

denying the Government’s motion for reconsideration and remand for

reimposition of Francis’ original terms of imprisonment and supervised release. 

Francis was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West

1999), distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841

(West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and using or carrying a firearm during

and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000). The district court sentenced Francis

to a 324-month term of imprisonment on the drug counts and a consecutive sixty-month term on the § 924(c) count, to be followed by

five years of supervised release. We affirmed Francis’ convictions

and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Barber, No. 97-

4983(L), 1999 WL 95539 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 1999) (unpublished). 

2 UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS
Francis filed a § 2255 motion in the district court challenging his

convictions and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Francis also claimed, among other things, that the indictment

was defective and that counsel provided ineffective representation.*

The district court granted Francis’ § 2255 motion in part, holding that

Apprendi applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, and

reduced Francis’ terms of imprisonment and supervised release to 240

months and three years, respectively. The court denied relief as to

Francis’ other claims. The Government filed a motion to reconsider,

arguing that Apprendi should not be applied retroactively to cases on

collateral review. The district court denied the motion. Francis and the

Government appeal. 

In No. 01-4077, our review of the record and the district court’s

opinion to the extent it denied relief on Francis’ claims discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Francis’ motion for judicial

notice and affirm the denial of relief on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-96-21; CA-00-141-1

(W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2000). We also grant Francis’ motion to file a pro

se supplemental brief but find the claims raised therein to be without

merit. 

In No. 01-4014, the Government appeals from the district court’s

denial of its motion to reconsider the granting of relief on Francis’

motion with respect to his claim under Apprendi. In United States v.

Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2001

WL 1244813 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2001) (No. 01-6715), we held that

Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

Id. at 151. The district court’s order squarely conflicts with Sanders.

We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying the Government’s motion for reconsideration and remand with instructions to

reimpose Francis’ original 324-month sentence and five-year term of

supervised release. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot the

*To the extent Francis does not challenge on appeal his remaining

claims or the district court’s order denying his motion for an enlargement

of time in which to respond to the Government’s motion for reconsideration, we find that he has abandoned those issues on appeal. See Edwards

v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that

issues not briefed or argued on appeal are deemed abandoned). 

UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS 3
Government’s motion for summary reversal of the district court’s

order to the extent that it granted partial relief. 

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. 

No. 01-4014, REVERSED AND REMANDED

No. 01-4077, AFFIRMED

4 UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS