Court Opinion

ID: 1005388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:55:58.69191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:32.854631
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOHN THOMAS GARRISON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-97-83, CA-00-258-7)

Submitted:   September 20, 2001       Decided:   September 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John Thomas Garrison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001).   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. Garrison, Nos.

CR-97-83; CA-00-258-7 (W.D. Va. May 2, 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, Garrison’s Apprendi claim
is not cognizable.

                                  2