Court Opinion

ID: 1003163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:22:18.39475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:23.341605
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

RICKY ALLEN BRADLEY,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-95-75-V)

Submitted:   December 14, 2000         Decided:     December 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Allen Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ricky Allen Bradley appeals the district court’s order denying

Bradley’s motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and for materials needed to prepare

such a motion.    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.      United States v.

Bradley, No. CR-95-75-V (W.D.N.C. July 6, 2000).*   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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
July 5, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on July 6, 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