United States v. Smith ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7102
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE LAMONT SMITH, a/k/a Tyrone Eady, a/k/a
Blue,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., Dis-
trict Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-41)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Lamont Smith appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion to vacate and reduce sentence under 18
U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West 2000) and a motion to reconsider sentence.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See United States v. Smith, No. CR-94-41 (W.D. Va.
filed Apr. 24, 2000; entered Apr. 25, 2000). We decline to address
Smith’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that his sen-
tence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). See
First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil Inc., 206 F.3d 404,
407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for
first time on appeal); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal
generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances
of plain error of fundamental miscarriage of justice). 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.
AFFIRMED
2