United States v. Burress

86 F. App'x 610

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Anthony Burress seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burress has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

Footnotes

•

* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 note that Burress’ claim pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not cognizable on collateral review. United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001).