UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES EDWARD COFFEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 01-6796
CHARLES EDWARD COFFEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-98-192-V, CA-00-170-1-V, CA-00-170)
Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 19, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Edward Coffey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Coffey seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2000). In the first order appealed, the district court
denied Coffey’s motion to amend his action to add a claim based
upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dis-
miss the appeal of this order substantially on the reasoning of the
district court.* See United States v. Coffey, Nos. CR-98-192-V;
CA-00-170-1-V (W.D.N.C. filed Jan. 30, 2001; entered Feb. 2, 2001).
In the second order, Coffey appeals from the district court’s final
order denying him relief under § 2255. 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 on
the reasoning of the district court. See Coffey v. United States,
Nos. CR-98-192-V; CA-00-170 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 19, 2001; entered
May 8, 2001).
*
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, Appellant’s Apprendi
claim is not cognizable.
3
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
4