United States v. Cheese

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 13, 2001
Docket01-6766
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Cheese (United States v. Cheese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cheese, (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY LAMONT CHEESE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-155, CA-00-548-5)

Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 13, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Lamont Cheese, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Troy Lamont Cheese seeks to appeal an order of the district

court denying his motion to reconsider an order dismissing his

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

2001). The district court dismissed the motion as untimely, and

declined to reconsider that order. On appeal, Cheese seeks to pur-

sue only issues he raised in an amendment and supplemental addendum

to the motion. Those issues all arise from the Supreme Court’s

decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This

court recently held that the ruling in Apprendi does not apply

retroactively to cases on collateral review. United States v.

Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, as Cheese

is entitled to no relief, we deny a certificate of appealability.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Cheese, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cheese-ca4-2001.