Court Opinion

ID: 1001759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:00:31.414829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:20.264198
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BASHAWN LEE HANBERRY, a/k/a BO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-94-185, CA-99-13)

Submitted:   May 25, 2000                   Decided:   June 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bashawn Lee Hanberry, Appellant Pro Se.        David Bernard Smith,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Bashawn Lee Hanberry seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court.     See United States v. Hanberry, Nos. CR-94-185; CA-99-13

(M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2000).*   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
March 6, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 7, 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