Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clyde Michael LEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-28
Citations: 14 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 00-7228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clyde Michael LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clyde Michael LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7228.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2001.
Decided June 28, 2001.
Clyde Michael Lee, pro se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clyde Michael Lee seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). 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 the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lee, Nos. CR-97-186-A; CA-00-978-AM (E.D.Va. Aug. 9, 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that resentencing pursuant to a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion does not toll § 2255's limitations period. Accordingly, Lee's claim that he has timely filed fails.