Court Opinion

ID: 997252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:53:39.150419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:04.678824
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, JR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-398-JFM, CA-96-3664-JFM)

Submitted:   November 19, 1998            Decided:   December 2, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,
United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Nathaniel Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-95-398-

JFM; CA-96-3664-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 18, 1998).* 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” and
“entered” on February 17, 1998, the district court’s records show
that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 18, 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. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th
Cir. 1986).

                                 2