Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tonya Lutissue McNEIL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-01
Citations: 42 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 01-7857
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tonya Lutissue McNEIL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 42
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tonya Lutissue McNEIL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7857.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2002.
Decided Aug. 1, 2002.
Tonya Lutissue McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tonya Lutissue McNeil seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2002). 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. McNeil, Nos. CR-96-194-FO; CA-01-535-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 5, 2001; entered Sept. 6, 2001). 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 note that the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that a district court must give a petitioner notice and an opportunity to respond before dismissing his claims as untimely under the AEDPA), in rendering its decision. We therefore express no opinion as to the timeliness of McNeil's motion, but affirm on the district court's alternative finding that McNeil is not substantively entitled to relief under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).