United States v. Taylor , 2 F. App'x 352 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-7373
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KIM FREDERICK TAYLOR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-98-208, CA-00-209-1)
    Submitted:   January 18, 2001             Decided:   January 25, 2001
    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kim Frederick Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kim Frederick Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp.
    2000). On appeal, Taylor alleges that the Supreme Court’s decision
    in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
     (2000),
    renders his guilty plea invalid because he was not informed during
    the guilty plea inquiry that the prosecution would be required to
    prove drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. We need not address
    whether Apprendi applies retroactively on collateral review because
    Taylor’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum under 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (b)(1)(C) (West 1999), which sets the statutory maxi-
    mum at twenty years for the smallest amounts of cocaine.
    We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no
    reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
    ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
    court.     United States v. Taylor, Nos. CR-98-208; CA-00-209-1
    (M.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2000).   We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
    terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7373

Citation Numbers: 2 F. App'x 352

Judges: Hamilton, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 1/25/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023