Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth B. KUBINSKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-28
Citations: 13 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 99-6985
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth B. KUBINSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth B. KUBINSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-6985.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2001.
Decided June 28, 2001.
Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth B. Kubinski seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). In a supplemental brief, he asserts claims that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory material as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); that the trial court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999), regarding the continuing criminal enterprise count; and that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error as to its denial of relief on Kubinski's claim under Brady. We decline to consider Kubinski's claims under Richardson and Apprendi, presented for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Kubinski Nos. CR-93-28-H; CA-97-973-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 1, 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 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, Kubinski's Apprendi claim is not cognizable.