Court Opinion

ID: 1004923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:48:44.742808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:35.929017
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 01-6539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KURT ELLIOT PAYNE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-360-A, CA-01-325-1)

Submitted:   July 12, 2001                 Decided:   July 26, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kurt Elliot Payne, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 opin-

ion and find no reversible error.     Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate 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 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review.    Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi
claim is not cognizable.

                                 2