Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Guy Crenshaw appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also dismissed Crenshaw's claim raised for the first time on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it recently held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Crenshaw's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6620

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Guy Crenshaw appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also dismissed Crenshaw's claim raised for the first time on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it recently held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Crenshaw's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Guy Crenshaw appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. The court also dismissed Crenshaw's claim raised for the first time on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, as it recently held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, the appellate court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Crenshaw's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6620

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GUY CARMICHAEL CRENSHAW,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CR-96-47, CA-99-424-7)

    Submitted:

    August 31, 2001

    Decided:

    September 13, 2001

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Guy Carmichael Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Guy Crenshaw 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 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. Crenshaw, Nos. CR-96-47; CA-99-424-7
    (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2000).

    Crenshaw has also raised a claim for the

    first time on appeal challenging his conviction and 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 (4th Cir. 2001),
    that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively
    applicable to cases on collateral review.
    Apprendi claim is not cognizable.

    Accordingly, Crenshaws

    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