Court Opinion

ID: 1005400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:56:06.060627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:33.822911
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-6842

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JESUS JOEL LOACES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CR-99-52, CA-01-76-1)

Submitted:   September 20, 2001       Decided:   September 27, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jesus Joel Loaces 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.*     United States v. Loaces, Nos.

CR-99-52; CA-01-76-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2001).     We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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