Court Opinion

ID: 998655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:14:01.008218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:09.412656
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 98-7556

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARTIN LOCKLEAR,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District
Judge. (CR-95-16, CA-98-344-5-BR)

Submitted:   April 20, 1999                    Decided:   May 3, 1999

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Martin Locklear seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See United States v. Locklear, Nos. CR-95-

16; CA-98-344-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 1998).*    We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 29, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 30, 1998. 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