Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, a/k/a Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-11
Citations: 47 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 02-6900
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, a/k/a Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 47
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lovell MOSELEY, a/k/a Charles Bimis, a/k/a Charles Cheeks, a/k/a Cheeks, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-6900.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 5, 2002.
Decided Sept. 11, 2002.
Charles Lovell Moseley, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Lovell Moseley seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Moseley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Moseley, Nos. CR-99-94; CA-01-193 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 19, 2001, entered Sept. 20, 2001; filed and entered Nov. 19, 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
We consider Moseley's notice of appeal timely because judgment was not entered in a separate document. 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 (9th Cir.1989); 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 Fed. R. Civ. R. 58).