Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Anthony BURRESS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-05
Citations: 86 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 03-7190
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas Anthony BURRESS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 610–610

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas Anthony BURRESS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7190.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 29, 2004.
Decided Feb. 5, 2004.
Thomas Anthony Burress, Appellant pro se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Anthony Burress seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burress has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 Burress' claim pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not cognizable on collateral review. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001).