Court Opinion

ID: 999009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:19:31.618091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:10.452084
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 98-7704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM F. KINCAID, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-89-
98-HM, CA-94-2559-AMD)

Submitted:   June 17, 1999                 Decided:   June 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Kincaid, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens
Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Kincaid, Jr., 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 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. Kincaid, Nos. CR-89-98-

HM; CA-94-2559-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1998).*       We deny Kincaid’s

motion for appointment of counsel.   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 stamped September 30,
1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the
docket sheet on October 1, 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. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d
1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2