Court Opinion

ID: 999689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:29:33.556323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:12.699100
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

XUYEN THI VU,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-354-A)

Submitted:   September 9, 1999        Decided:   September 14, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xuyen Thi Vu, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Xuyen Thi Vu seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-

trict court.   See United States v. Vu, No. CR-95-354-A (E.D. Va.

Jan. 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 district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
January 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 7, 1999. 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.3d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2