Filed: Aug. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JINKINS HOPKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-99-341, CA-01-4177-3-19) Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jinkins Hopkins, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6389 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JINKINS HOPKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-99-341, CA-01-4177-3-19) Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jinkins Hopkins, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JINKINS HOPKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-99-341, CA-01-4177-3-19)
Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jinkins Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jinkins Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court's order
denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He raises a
claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), asserting
that his sentence on three charges arising out of a marijuana
conspiracy violates the statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(4) (2000). The decision in Apprendi issued prior to Hopkins'
conviction, and he did not object to his sentence in light of
Apprendi. Accordingly, this claim is procedurally barred. See
Bousley v. United States,
523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998); United States
v. Sanders,
247 F.3d 139, 145 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S.
,
122 S. Ct. 573 (2001). Thus, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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