Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7199 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ENRICO FERRIANTE COTTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-161-F, CA-00-167-5-F) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Enri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7199 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ENRICO FERRIANTE COTTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-161-F, CA-00-167-5-F) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Enric..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ENRICO FERRIANTE COTTEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District
Judge. (CR-95-161-F, CA-00-167-5-F)
Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Enrico Ferriante Cotten, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Enrico Ferriante Cotten appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of
the district court.* United States v. Cotten, Nos. CR-95-161-F;
CA-00-167-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 30, 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 recently held in United States v. Sanders, F.3d ,
2001 WL 369719 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that the new
rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), is
not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Accordingly, Cotten’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.
2