UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHANNON ANDRE PETERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00047-BO-1; 7:11-cv-00056-BO)
Submitted: April 30, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julia C. Ambrose, Wes J. Camden, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Andre Peters appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. United States v. Peters, Nos. 7:07-cr-00047-BO; 7:11-cv-
00056-BO (E.D.N.C. July 31, 2012). We note that subsequent to
the district court’s decision in this case, we decided United
States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012). In Powell, we
held that Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010),
and by extension, United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th
Cir. 2011), were not retroactively applicable. Peters argues
that this court improperly decided Powell because it did not
recognize that Carachuri-Rosendo has substantive applications
and should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral
review. We decline Peters’ invitation to re-examine the court’s
previous decision in Powell. See United States v. Guglielmi,
819 F.2d 451, 457 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that only an en banc
court, not a subsequent panel, has authority to overturn a
previous panel’s published decision). Under Powell, the rulings
in Carachuri-Rosendo and Simmons are not applicable to Peters’
§ 2255 motion. Therefore the relief Peters seeks is not
available on collateral review. Further, the retroactivity
issue was not included in the partial grant of a certificate of
2
appealability by the district court and there was no motion for
expansion of the certificate of appealability. See 4th Cir. R.
22(a)(2)(A). We therefore affirm the order.
We deny Peters’ motion to appoint counsel. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3