UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-6020



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL SCOTT MCRAE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-97-94-5-H, CA-00-465-5)


Submitted:   May 18, 2001                   Decided:   May 31, 2001


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Scott McRae, Appellant Pro Se.     Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant
United States Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Michael Scott McRae 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 substantially on the

reasoning of the district court.*     United States v. McRae, Nos. CR-

97-94-5-H; CA-00-465-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2000).     We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                            DISMISSED




     *
       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 v. New Jersey, 

 (2000), is
not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Accordingly, McRae’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.


                                  2