United States v. Porter

22 F. App'x 269
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Porter. Read the opinion of the Court — 49 F. App'x 438
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 12, 2001·No. 01-6876·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Khalid Latif Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) and denying reconsideration of that order. 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 *270 appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Porter, Nos. CR-98-222-A; CA-01-601-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2001; Apr. 10, 2001). 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 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, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Porter's Ap-prendi claim is not cognizable.

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

United States v. Porter, 22 F. App'x 269 (4th Cir. 2001).

22 F. App'x 269 (United States v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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