United States v. Blackwood ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALTHEA BLACKWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-93-58-F)
Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bridgett Britt Aguirre, Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Althea Blackwood appeals from the order of the district
court revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to
forty-eight months imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Blackwood asserts she was not advised of the potential
consequences attendant on revocation of supervised release at the
time of her underlying guilty plea in 1993, and this failure
amounts to plain error, tainting the subsequent sentence on
revocation of supervised release. This claim is, in essence, a
challenge to the propriety of the 1993 plea hearing and resultant
sentence and conviction. Blackwood’s opportunity to raise this
claim by direct appeal has long since lapsed. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A). Similarly, Blackwood’s right to move to vacate, set
aside, or correct her conviction and sentence lapsed on April 24,
1997, one year after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Hernandez v.
Caldwell, 225 F.3d 435, 437-39 (4th Cir. 2000); Brown v. Angelone,
150 F.3d 370, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, although we
have jurisdiction over the present appeal of the revocation order,
we do not have jurisdiction over the claim she advances in this
appeal. See United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir.
1991).
We affirm the order of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -