Filed: Dec. 12, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6876 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KHALID LATIF PORTER, a/k/a Khalid Abdulsallam, a/k/a Khalid Taylor, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-222-A, CA-01-601-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6876 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KHALID LATIF PORTER, a/k/a Khalid Abdulsallam, a/k/a Khalid Taylor, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-222-A, CA-01-601-AM) Submitted: November 21, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6876
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KHALID LATIF PORTER, a/k/a Khalid Abdulsallam,
a/k/a Khalid Taylor,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CR-98-222-A, CA-01-601-AM)
Submitted: November 21, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khalid Latif Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Khalid Latif Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2001) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of
the district court.* United States v. Porter, Nos. CR-98-222-A;
CA-01-601-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2001; Apr. 10, 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 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, Porter’s Apprendi claim is not
cognizable.
2