                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-6418



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff -Appellee,

          versus


COVEY RONNELL ANDREWS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-97-59, CA-00-635)


Submitted:   May 17, 2001                   Decided:   May 29, 2001


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Covey Ronnell Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Covey Ronnell Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000) (and alternatively filed as a writ of error coram nobis or

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal sub-

stantially on the reasoning of the district court.*   United States

v. Andrews, Nos. CR-97-59; CA-00-635 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 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




     *
       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 v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is
not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.


                                 2
