Filed: Oct. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL WOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-93-90, CA-00-718-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL WOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-93-90, CA-00-718-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WENDELL WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-93-90, CA-00-718-2)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendall Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wendell Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-
nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).
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 appeal substantially on the reasoning
of the district court.* See United States v. Wood, Nos. CR-93-20;
CA-00-718-2 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2001). We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Although we have not determined when the limitations period
accrues for claims raising issues under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530
U.S. 466 (2000), see United States v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139, 144
(4th Cir. 2001), we have held, as the district court recognized,
that Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
Id. at 151.
2