Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Ira Lee Dickerson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also held that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Dickerson's case on collateral review. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit granted Dickerson's motion to amend his brief but dismissed the appeal, denying a certificate of appealability based on the reasoning of the district court. It further denied Dickerson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7538

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ira Lee Dickerson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also held that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Dickerson's case on collateral review. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit granted Dickerson's motion to amend his brief but dismissed the appeal, denying a certificate of appealability based on the reasoning of the district court. It further denied Dickerson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ira Lee Dickerson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It also held that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Dickerson's case on collateral review. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit granted Dickerson's motion to amend his brief but dismissed the appeal, denying a certificate of appealability based on the reasoning of the district court. It further denied Dickerson's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 00-7538

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    IRA LEE DICKERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    C. Weston Houck, District Judge.
    (CR-91-36, CA-97-2809-4-12)

    Submitted:

    April 27, 2001

    Decided:

    May 15, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Ira Lee Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, 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:
    Ira Lee Dickerson seeks to appeal the district courts order
    dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255
    (West Supp. 2000).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion and find no reversible error.

    With respect to

    Dickersons newly-presented claim on appeal that he was sentenced


    in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 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 is not retroactively applicable to cases on
    collateral review.

    Accordingly, we grant Dickersons motion to

    amend his brief, but deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    United

    States v. Dickerson, Nos. CR-91-36; CA-97-2809-4-12 (D.S.C. filed


    Sept. 27, 2000; entered Sept. 28, 2000).

    We further deny Dicker-

    sons motion for the appointment of counsel. 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

    You might also like