Court Opinion

ID: 1005326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:54:46.678566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:33.769505
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 01-6228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LANCELOT WADDINGTON GIBBS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-91-86, CA-98-124-3-MU)

Submitted:   June 15, 2001             Decided:   September 10, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lancelot Waddington Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Elise Eady,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Lancelot Waddington Gibbs 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 on the reasoning of

the district court.*   United States v. Gibbs, Nos. CR-91-86; CA-98-

124-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 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, Gibbs’ Apprendi claim is
not cognizable.

                                  2