United States v. Hamrick

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6474 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID MARTIN HAMRICK, a/k/a The Old Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-67, CA-01-7-4) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Martin Hamrick, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Hampton, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Martin Hamrick appeals the district court’s order deny- ing 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. Hamrick, Nos. CR-92-67; CA-01-7-4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 18, 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, Hamrick’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable. 2