Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bowman, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Yancy Nathaniel Bowman appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. As such, the appeals court denied Bowman's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also noted that Bowman's new Apprendi claim, raised for the first time on appeal, was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6937

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Yancy Nathaniel Bowman appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. As such, the appeals court denied Bowman's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also noted that Bowman's new Apprendi claim, raised for the first time on appeal, was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. Bowman, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Yancy Nathaniel Bowman appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate's recommendation. As such, the appeals court denied Bowman's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the district court's reasoning. The appeals court also noted that Bowman's new Apprendi claim, raised for the first time on appeal, was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6937

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    YANCY NATHANIEL BOWMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-98-255, CA-00-487-1)

    Submitted:

    August 23, 2001

    Decided:

    September 5, 2001

    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Yancy Nathaniel Bowman, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Yancy Nathaniel Bowman seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2001).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Bowman, Nos. CR-98-255; CA-00-487-1
    (M.D.N.C. May 9, 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

    Bowman also challenges for the first time on appeal his 168month sentence in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
    (2000). We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d
    139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi
    is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
    Accordingly, Bowmans Apprendi claim is not cognizable.
    2

    You might also like