Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Earl BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-07
Citations: 8 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 00-6719
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Earl BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Earl BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6719.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2001.
Decided May 7, 2001.
David Earl Beasley, pro se.
Fenita Morris Shepard, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Earl Beasley appeals 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Beasley, Nos. CR-94-122-F; CA-98-810-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 1999). 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 previously granted Beasley's petition for rehearing and placed his appeal in abeyance for United States v. Jones, No. 00-7249, 2001 WL 692281. We recently held, however, in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 2001 WL 369719 (4thCir., 2001) (No. 00-6281), 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, the Apprendi claim Beasley asserted for the first time in his petition for rehearing in this appeal is not cognizable. We therefore remove this appeal from abeyance because we conclude Sanders is dispositive of Beasley's Apprendi claim.