United States v. Campfield

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6627 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN CAMPFIELD, a/k/a Kevin Macon, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR- 98-315, CA-01-622-CCB) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Campfield, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kevin Campfield 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.* United States v. Campfield, Nos. CR-98- 315; CA-01-622-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 27, 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 * Campfield’s claim that his sentence is not proper in light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. 2