DAVID McKEAGUE, District Judge
On June 13, 1995, the Court sentenced defendant Danny White to life imprisonment after he was found guilty of distribution of methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The conviction and sentence have subsequently been upheld on appeal. Now before the Court is defendant's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion has been reviewed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The magistrate judge has issued a 37-page report and recommendation thoroughly analyzing defendant's motion and recommending that it be denied. Defendant has timely filed objections, which the Court now considers de novo.
I
In his first claim, defendant contends he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The report and recommendation thoroughly evaluates all four grounds asserted by defendant in support of this claim. In his objections, defendant does not meaningfully address the magistrate judge's evaluation of any of these four grounds, which evaluation the Court finds entirely proper. Rather, defendant contends the deficiency of appointed counsel's performance is borne out by his failure to object to the Court's determination of drug quantity at the time of sentencing. In accordance with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 166 (2000); United States v. Strayhorn, 250 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001), defendant argues the jury should have been required to determine drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Clearly, defense counsel cannot be faulted for failing to anticipate in 1995, at the time of defendant's trial and sentencing, the dramatic change wrought by the Supreme Court's Apprendi ruling in 2000. Counsel's failure to object to this Court's determination of drug quantity is no evidence of ineffective assistance. Defendant's objection to the recommended denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel is therefore overruled.
II
Defendant's second and third objections to the report and recommendation are premised on the argument that the "new rule" of Apprendi applies retroactively, rendering his conviction and sentence unconstitutional. The premise is faulty. The Sixth Circuit has definitively held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively. Goode v. United States, 305 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 711 (2002). It follows that defendant's second and third objections are also meritless.
III
Accordingly, the Court will approve the report and recommendation. Defendant's motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will be denied. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue forthwith.
ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
In accordance with the Court's memorandum opinion of even date,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence is DENIED.