Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BILLY JAMES SIMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-1067, CA-00-958-19) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy James Sims, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BILLY JAMES SIMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-1067, CA-00-958-19) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy James Sims, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BILLY JAMES SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-95-1067, CA-00-958-19)
Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy James Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Billy James Sims 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. In addition, as to Sims’ claim
under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), assuming without
deciding that it may be raised for the first time on appeal from
the denial of a § 2255 motion, we find that the sentence imposed
does not violate Sims’ substantial rights. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (1998). Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. United States v. Sims, Nos. CR-95-1067; CA-
00-958-19 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 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
2