Court Opinion

ID: 999014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:19:34.392373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:37.256268
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-6178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TIMOTHY ADAMS, a/k/a Smitt, a/k/a Rodney Clark,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge; Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CR-94-302,
CA-97-1225-1)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Timothy Adams 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

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. Adams, Nos. CR-94-302; CA-97-1225-1

(M.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 1999).*   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
January 27, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 28, 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.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                  2