Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-06
Citations: 10 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 00-7775
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 234–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7775.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 31, 2001.
Decided June 6, 2001.
Thomas Erwin Wray, Salem, VA, for appellant. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Anthony Johnson 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. Johnson, Nos. CR-95-17; CA-98-762-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 23, 2000). We deny Johnson's motion to substitute counsel. 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.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Johnson raises that his conviction and sentence are invalid because the drug quantity was not established in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The district court denied Johnson's motion to add this claim to his complaint because it was untimely under the AEDPA and the claim did not relate back to the original complaint. Even if the claim were properly before us, it would fail under the reasoning of United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001).