Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira Lee DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-15
Citations: 9 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 00-7538
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira Lee DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira Lee DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7538.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2001.
Decided May 15, 2001.
Ira Lee Dickerson, pro se.
Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ira Lee Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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. With respect to Dickerson's newly-presented claim on appeal that he was sentenced in violation of 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, we grant Dickerson's motion to amend his brief, but deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-91-36; CA-97-2809M-12 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 27, 2000; entered Sept. 28, 2000). We further deny Dickerson's motion for the appointment of 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.