Court Opinion

ID: 1005419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:56:16.980277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:34.443258
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-6617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CARLOS LOPEZ, a/k/a     Carlos    Garcia,   a/k/a
Rodolfo V. Quinones,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-94-60, CA-00-4015-8-20)

Submitted:   September 20, 2001         Decided:    September 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Carlos Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

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 on the reasoning of the

district court.   United States v. Lopez, Nos.    CR-94-60; CA-00-

4015-8-20 (D.S.C. Mar. 23, 2001).*   We deny Lopez’s motions for a

transcript at Government expense.    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 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review.    Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi
claims are not cognizable.

                                2