United States v. McKinnon

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD GREEN MCKINNON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-56-BR, CA-99-462-5-BR) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Green McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold Green McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and his motion for reconsideration. 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. McKinnon, Nos. CR-91-56-BR; CA-99-462-5- BR (E.D.N.C. June 12 & July 10, 2001). We grant McKinnon’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable. 2