Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Elliot PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-26
Citations: 14 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 01-6539
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Elliot PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Elliot PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-6539.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2001.
Decided July 26, 2001.
Kurt Elliot Payne, pro se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kurt Elliot Payne 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Payne, Nos. CR-99-360-A; CA-01-325-1 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2001; entered Mar. 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 recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant's Apprendi claim is not cognizable.