Court Opinion

ID: 1004468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:41:38.375531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:11.373369
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KIM RODNEY FARR,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CR-99-4, CA-00-493-3-T)

Submitted:   May 17, 2001                   Decided:   May 22, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Farr, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Kim Rodney Farr 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. Farr, Nos. CR-99-4;

CA-00-493-3-T (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 3, 2000; entered Nov. 9, 2000).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions 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, Farr’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.

                                 2