                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 01-6166



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


SEAN PATRICE CLARKSON, a/k/a Shawn Clarkson,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-95-49, CA-00-170-7-BR)


Submitted:   April 27, 2001                    Decided:   May 4, 2001


Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sean Patrice Clarkson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Sean Patrice Clarkson seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the

reasoning of the district court.*    See United States v. Clarkson,

Nos. CR-95-49; CA-00-170-7-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 2000).    We dis-

pense 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    ,
2000 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
