Filed: Sep. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD MATTOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-76, CA-99-649-7) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edwa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD MATTOX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-76, CA-99-649-7) Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edwar..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6517
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES EDWARD MATTOX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-96-76, CA-99-649-7)
Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Mattox, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Mattox seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. We decline to address Mattox’s
argument that he should have been granted a reduction in offense
level because the issue is raised for the first time on appeal.
See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Mattox’s argument that his conviction should be vacated under
Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. ,
68 U.S.L.W. 4576 (U.S. June
26, 2000) (No. 99-478) is without merit. See United States v.
Aguayo-Delgado, F.3d ,
2000 WL 988128 (8th Cir. July 18,
2000) (No. 00-1218). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See United States v. Mattox, Nos. CR-96-76; CA-99-649-7
(W.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2