Filed: Feb. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BYRON KEITH COLLINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-91-312, CA-01-2729-1-22) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Kei
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7917 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BYRON KEITH COLLINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-91-312, CA-01-2729-1-22) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Keit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7917
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BYRON KEITH COLLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-91-312, CA-01-2729-1-22)
Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Byron Keith Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Byron Keith Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001). Because Collins failed to obtain authorization from this
court to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court
properly denied the motion. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp.
2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
United States v. Collins, Nos. CR-91-312; CA-01-2729-1-22 (D.S.C.
filed Oct. 17, 2001; entered Oct. 18, 2001); see also United
States v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S.
,
122 S. Ct. 573 (2001) (holding claims pursuant to Apprendi v.
New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), are not cognizable on collateral
review). 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
2