US v. Joseph Newbold, No. 10-6929 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 30, 2015.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6929 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSEPH K. NEWBOLD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00262-TDS-1; 1:08-cv-00698-TDS-PTS) Submitted: October 30, 2012 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 11, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph K. Newbold, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph K. Newbold appeals the district court s order accepting a magistrate judge s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. entered October 19, 2011, we denied a By order certificate of appealability and dismissed all the claims Newbold raised on appeal except his claim that his predicate convictions no longer qualified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), in light of United banc). States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en We granted a certificate of appealability on the sole issue of whether Newbold is entitled to habeas relief on his ACCA sentence in light of Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), as applied in Simmons. This appeal was subsequently placed in abeyance for United States v. Powell, No. 11-6152, on the issue of whether Carachuri-Rosendo, as applied in Simmons, is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. In United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554, 558-60 (4th Cir. 2012), this court held that Carachuri-Rosendo announced a procedural rather than a substantive rule, and therefore is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Powell, habeas Carachuri-Rosendo relief. and Accordingly, Simmons we 2 do affirm not the Under afford Newbold district court s order on this remaining claim. 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
