Case ID: f-appx_37/html/0669-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Gene WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-6618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 13, 2002.
    Decided June 19, 2002.
    
      Samuel Gene Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Samuel Gene Woods appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Woods, Nos. CR-91-1; CA-97-100-V (W.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Woods’ appeal of the February 1, 2002, denial of his motion for reconsideration, filed on April 12, 2002, is considered timely because judgment was not entered in a separate document requirement. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 58; Fiore v. Washington Co. Community Mental Health Ctr., 960 F.2d 229, 234 (1st Cir.1992); Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.1989) (Rule 59 motion); Hughes v. Halifax County School Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir.1987) (holding a document that attempts to combine the court's reasoning and its final disposition is not likely to be considered a separate document under Rule 58).