Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Alvin RAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-16
Citations: 4 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 00-7126
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Alvin RAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 4
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Alvin RAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7126.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.
Decided Feb. 16, 2001.
Joseph Alvin Ray, pro se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Alvin Ray appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denying his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for reconsideration of the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We affirm.
To the extent that Ray's Rule 60(b) motion is, in actuality, a second § 2255 motion, we find that the district court properly dismissed it as successive. To the extent that it is a true Rule 60(b) motion, we note that it was filed approximately a year and a half after the order it challenges and thus appears' untimely. Even assuming that it is timely, however, we are persuaded by the district court's determination that the claims raised therein do not affect the integrity of the § 2255 proceeding. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's order denying the motion.
In his informal brief, Ray also argues, for the first time, that his case is affected by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which issued on June 26, 2000, approximately one month prior to the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Ray requests that this Court vacate the district court's order and remand for re-sentencing under Apprendi. We decline to do so, finding this claim to be successive.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED.