Court Opinion

ID: 1004400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:40:56.969588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:10.866015
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JUDLIN MORTIMER, a/k/a Chris,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-176-MU, CA-98-7-3-MU)

Submitted:   May 17, 2001                   Decided:   May 25, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judlin Mortimer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Judlin Mortimer seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying 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. Mortimer, Nos. CR-96-

176-MU; CA-98-7-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 21, 2000; entered June

23, 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 recently held in United States v. Sanders,      F.3d    ,
2001 WL 369719 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), 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 claim is not cognizable.

                                  2