Court Opinion

ID: 997879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:03:25.676756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:02.919963
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-7747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM DENNIS SUTTON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CR-93-64)

Submitted:   February 11, 1999         Decided:     February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Dennis Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Dennis Sutton appeals the district court’s orders de-

nying his motion to amend his presentence report and his motion to

reconsider.   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error.     Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court.    See United States v. Sutton,

No. CR-93-64 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1998;* Nov. 13, 1998).   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.

                                                           AFFIRMED

     *
      Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 26, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 27, 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. Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2