Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Lee NOLTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-23
Citations: 10 F. App'x 157
Docket Number: No. 00-6954
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Lee NOLTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Lee NOLTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6954.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2001.
Decided May 23, 2001.
Earl Lee Nolton, Jr., pro se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, MD, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Earl Lee Nolton, Jr., 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. Nolton, Nos. CR-96-120-DKC; CA-98-3412-DKC (D. Md. June 27, 2000). 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.
Nolton alleges that his sentence is illegal under Apprendi 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, Nolton's Apprendi claim is not cognizable.