United States v. Tinsley ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,               
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 00-6624
    KEVIN TINSLEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
    (CR-97-249-A, CA-99-1655-AM, CR-97-328-A, CA-99-1743-AM)
    Submitted: November 30, 2000
    Decided: December 20, 2000
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Kevin Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                       UNITED STATES v. TINSLEY
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Tinsley 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 opinion and find no
    reversible error on all but Tinsley’s third claim. Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to those claims
    on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Tinsley, Nos.
    CR-97-249-A; CA-99-1655-AM; CR-97-328-A; CA-99-1743-AM
    (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2000).*
    In his third claim, Tinsley asserted that he was entitled to relief
    under Jones v. United States, 
    526 U.S. 227
     (1999). In his supplemen-
    tal memorandum to this court Tinsley cites to Apprendi v. New Jer-
    sey, 530 U.S. ___ 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
     (2000), in support of this claim. We
    grant a certificate of appealability and vacate the district court’s ruling
    on this issue, and remand for further consideration in light of
    Apprendi, which was decided after the district court’s ruling in this
    case. On remand, the district court should consider the applicability
    of the Apprendi ruling to a case such as this on collateral review; the
    effect of Tinsley’s failure to raise this issue at trial; and whether Tins-
    ley’s conviction under 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 1958
     (West 2000), is affected
    by the Apprendi decision. We grant Tinsley’s motion to file a supple-
    mental memorandum; 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 IN PART, VACATED
    IN PART, AND REMANDED
    *Although the district court’s order is marked as "filed" on April 14,
    2000, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket
    sheet on April 19, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment or order was
    entered on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s
    decision. Wilson v. Murray, 
    806 F.2d 1232
    , 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6624

Filed Date: 12/20/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014