US v. Shannon Peters, No. 12-7323 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7323 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHANNON ANDRE PETERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00047-BO-1; 7:11-cv-00056-BO) Submitted: April 30, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julia C. Ambrose, Wes J. Camden, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shannon Andre Peters appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s United States v. Peters, Nos. 7:07-cr-00047-BO; 7:11-cv- 00056-BO (E.D.N.C. July 31, 2012). We note that subsequent to the district court s decision in this case, we decided United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012). In Powell, we held that Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and by extension, United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), were not retroactively applicable. Peters argues that this court improperly decided Powell because it did not recognize and that should review. be Carachuri-Rosendo applied has retroactively substantive to cases applications on collateral We decline Peters invitation to re-examine the court s previous decision in Powell. See United States v. Guglielmi, 819 F.2d 451, 457 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that only an en banc court, not a subsequent panel, has previous panel s published decision). authority to overturn a Under Powell, the rulings in Carachuri-Rosendo and Simmons are not applicable to Peters § 2255 motion. available on Therefore collateral the review. relief Peters Further, the seeks is not retroactivity issue was not included in the partial grant of a certificate of 2 appealability by the district court and there was no motion for expansion of the certificate of appealability. 22(a)(2)(A). We dispense We therefore affirm the order. deny with contentions See 4th Cir. R. are Peters oral motion argument adequately to appoint because presented in the the counsel. facts We and legal materials before this 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.
