Court Opinion

ID: 999797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:30:56.193009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:14.162568
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                            No. 99-6829

ENOCH WESLEY CLARK,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-15, CA-99-584-2)

Submitted: September 9, 1999

Decided: September 22, 1999

Before ERVIN,* WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Enoch Wesley Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Spe-
cial Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died
prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum
of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Enoch Wesley Clark seeks to appeal the district court's orders
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error.
We find that Clark's challenge to the district court's calculation of his
criminal history category is not cognizable on collateral review
because he failed to raise this issue at sentencing or on direct appeal.
See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). We also find that
the district court properly denied Clark's motion for reconsideration.
Because Clark raised a new claim regarding the effectiveness of his
counsel, the motion was in fact a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Denial was proper because Clark failed to obtain authorization from
this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See 28
U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 1999). Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the
district court. See United States v. Clark, Nos. CR-98-15; CA-99-584-
2 (E.D. Va. May 10 & June 16, 1999).* We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
*Although the district court's order denying the motion for reconsider-
ation is marked as "filed" on June 15, 1999, the district court's records
show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 16, 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 effec-
tive date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d
1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                    2