Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Mortimer, 01-6180 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6180 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6180 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUDLIN MORTIMER, a/k/a Chris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-176-MU, CA-98-7-3-MU) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-6180



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JUDLIN MORTIMER, a/k/a Chris,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-176-MU, CA-98-7-3-MU)


Submitted:   May 17, 2001                   Decided:   May 25, 2001


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Judlin Mortimer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Judlin Mortimer seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court.*   See United States v. Mortimer, Nos. CR-96-

176-MU; CA-98-7-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 21, 2000; entered June

23, 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




     *
       We recently held in United States v. Sanders,      F.3d    ,
2001 WL 369719
 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that the new
rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
530 U.S. 466
 (2000), is
not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.


                                  2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer