Court Opinion

ID: 1002725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:15:24.395877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:54.144997
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JERRY LEE KEY,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-97-33, CA-99-796-2)

Submitted:   October 12, 2000             Decided:   October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lee Key, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States
Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Jerry Lee Key seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Key, Nos. CR-97-33; CA-99-796-2 (S.D.W.

Va. Aug. 3, 2000).*     We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                          DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 2, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 3, 2000. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                  2