Court Opinion

ID: 999405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:25:21.493133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:09.590860
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LOUIS R. JACKSON,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-96-260-A, CA-98-1732-AM)

Submitted:   August 5, 1999                 Decided:   August 11, 1999

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. John Jude Farley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Louis R. Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on 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 and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-96-260-

A; CA-98-1732-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 1999).*   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

     *
       Although the order from which Jackson appeals was filed on
April 6, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet
on April 7, 1999. April 7, 1999, is therefore the effective date
of the district court’s decision.     See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).

                                 2