UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6104
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL BENJAMIN KELLY, a/k/a Tiz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-94-163, CA-98-569-2)
Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Benjamin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Benjamin Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on
the reasoning of the district court.* See United States v. Kelly,
Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-569-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1998). 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 are mindful that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Richardson v. United States, 119 S.Ct. 1707 (1999), overrules our
holding in United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1996),
cited by the district court, that the jury need not agree on the
specific drug offenses committed by a defendant to find him guilty
of a continuing criminal enterprise. Richardson is of no avail to
Kelly, however, because he did not raise the jury unanimity claim
prior to collateral proceedings, and the district properly rejected
his claim that ineffective assistance of counsel constituted cause
for his default. See United States v. McNamara, 74 F.2d 514, 516-
17 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding counsel not ineffective for failing to
object to jury instruction that comported with circuit law
applicable at the time).
2