Court Opinion

ID: 1001238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:52:29.619635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:18.568257
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-7112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES ANTHONY WALKER, a/k/a Jay,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-95-17, CA-98-663-7)

Submitted:   March 23, 2000                 Decided:   March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anthony Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James Anthony Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion 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. Walker, Nos. CR-95-17; CA-98-663-7

(W.D. Va. June 11, 1999).*   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
June 7, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on June 11, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and
79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date 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