Court Opinion

ID: 1000124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:30.157065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:16.496363
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 98-7838

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CHONG CHAO CHEN, a/k/a #21,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
94-156-S, CA-98-3362-S)

Submitted:   October 21, 1999               Decided:   October 26, 1999

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chong Chao Chen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Chong Chao Chen 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. Chen, Nos. CR-94-156-S;

CA-98-3362-S (D. Md. Oct. 13,* 1999).    We deny Chen’s motion for

judicial notice and 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
October 8, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 13, 1998. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that
we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision.
Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2