Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas Eric TURNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-07
Citations: 117 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 04-7342
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nicholas Eric TURNER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nicholas Eric TURNER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7342.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2004.
Nicholas Eric Turner, Appellant pro se.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Eric Turner seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a direct appeal. 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 this appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Turner, No. CR-02-79 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2004).
Turner asserted two additional claims for the first time in his appeal to this court: (1) he does not meet the enhancement requirements necessary to be labeled an armed criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000); and (2) an amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines changed the rules allowing enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), 924(c) (2000). Because neither claim was raised in the district court, Turner may not raise them now on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to those claims as well.
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