Filed: September 6, 2001 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6522 (CR-98-184-H, CA-01-44-5-H)

United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

Mark James Ramirez, Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed July 3, 2001, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, lines 1-2 -- the district court is corrected to read “Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.”

On page 2, line 7 -- The reference to “W.D.N.C.” is corrected to “E.D.N.C.” For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

MARK JAMES RAMIREZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-98-184-H, CA-01-44-5-H)

Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 3, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark James Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mark James Ramirez appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his § 2255 motion as untimely. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Ramirez’s appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* See United States v. Ramirez, Nos. CR-98-184-H; CA-01-44- 5-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument be- cause 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, 247 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 2001), 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, Ramirez’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.