Court Opinion

ID: 1000317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:38:28.087359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:55.658945
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JAMES KEVIN NELSON,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-94-
262-L, CA-98-1301-L)

Submitted:   November 18, 1999          Decided:    November 23, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Kevin Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James Kevin Nelson 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. Nelson, Nos. CR-94-262-L;

CA-98-1301-L (D. Md. July 14, 1999).*       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 marked as “filed” on
July 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 14, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that 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