Court Opinion

ID: 1001247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:52:34.505342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:18.655055
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-6749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

THURON BAKER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-95-
234-L, CA-97-3597-L)

Submitted:   March 23, 2000                 Decided:   March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thuron Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Thuron Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-

trict court.   See United States v. Baker, Nos. CR-95-234-L; CA-97-

3597-L (D. Md. May 20, 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
May 19, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 20, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and
79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date 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