Court Opinion

ID: 1004549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:42:59.952774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:33.547535
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-6290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

VERNON PONDS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-95-370)

Submitted:   May 31, 2001                   Decided:   June 8, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Ponds, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Vernon Ponds seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing 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.*     United States v. Ponds, No. CR-95-370

(D.S.C. filed Dec. 20, 2000; entered Dec. 21, 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, Ponds’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.

                                 2