Court Opinion

ID: 1002220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:07:37.300725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:08.419005
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
97-53-PJM, CA-99-2648-PJM)

Submitted:   July 27, 2000                 Decided:   August 9, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Ranganath Manthripragada,
Assistant United States Attorney, John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Damon Emanuel Elliott 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 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. Elliott, Nos. CR-97-53-

PJM; CA-99-2648-PJM (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2000).*       We further deny

Elliott’s motions for the appointment of counsel and response to

informal brief.   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 district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
April 5, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 6, 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