UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7210



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


VANCE MARCEL GIBSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-93-211-6, CA-98-113-1)


Submitted:   May 3, 2001                    Decided:   May 17, 2001


Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Vance Marcel Gibson 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.     Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.*   United States v. Gibson, Nos. CR-93-211-6;

CA-98-113-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2000).      Gibson has also filed a

motion to stay proceedings and remand this case to the district

court so he can amend his § 2255 motion to include an Apprendi

claim.   This motion is denied.   We dispense with oral argument be-

cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.




                                                           DISMISSED




     *
       Gibson alleges for the first time in his informal brief that
his sentence is illegal under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000). We recently held in United States v. Sanders,          F.3d
   , 

 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that
the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable
to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi
claim is not cognizable.


                                  2