Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6474 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID MARTIN HAMRICK, a/k/a The Old Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-67, CA-01-7-4) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6474 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID MARTIN HAMRICK, a/k/a The Old Man, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-92-67, CA-01-7-4) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6474
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID MARTIN HAMRICK, a/k/a The Old Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-92-67, CA-01-7-4)
Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Martin Hamrick, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Timothy Richard
Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Hampton, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Martin Hamrick appeals the district court’s order deny-
ing 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.* United States v. Hamrick, Nos. CR-92-67;
CA-01-7-4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2001). 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,
247 F.3d 139
(4th Cir. 2001), 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, Hamrick’s Apprendi claim
is not cognizable.
2