Court Opinion

ID: 1001935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:03:05.29627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.258058
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-7370

CHARLES DORSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson E. Legg, District Judge.
(CR-93-228-L, CA-97-3455-L)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: June 27, 2000

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded in part and dismissed in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Charles Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Prior
to entry of its final judgment, the district court failed to provide Dor-
sey with notice under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th
Cir. 1975). This failure to provide notice may have prejudiced Dor-
sey's claim that his counsel's assistance was constitutionally deficient
because counsel allegedly refused to negotiate a plea agreement. We
therefore grant a certificate of appealability with respect to this claim.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). We
vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for issuance of
the required notice and further proceedings on this issue.1 However,
in all other respects, our review of the record reveals no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as to Dor-
sey's other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and dismiss the
appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dor-
sey, Nos. CR-93-225-L; CA-97-3455-L (D. Md. Aug. 17, 1999).2 We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
_________________________________________________________________

1 By this disposition, we indicate no view as to the merits of the district
court's judgment. Following the proceedings upon remand, the district
court possesses full authority to alter or re-enter its original judgment.
2 Although the district court's judgment or order is dated August 13,
1999, and is marked as "filed" on August 16, 1999, the district court's
records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 17, 1999.
Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wil-
son v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                     2