Court Opinion

ID: 999403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:25:20.436244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:52.031230
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-6513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DANIEL ORIAKHI,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
by designation. (CR-92-283-MJG, CA-98-2207-HNM)

Submitted:   August 5, 1999                 Decided:   August 11, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.    Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Daniel Oriakhi seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

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

1999), his motion for court records, and his motion for reconsid-

eration.   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

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

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See United States v. Oriakhi, Nos. CR-92-

283-MJG; CA-98-2207-HNM (D. Md. Mar. 11, 1999*; Mar. 23, 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
March 10, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 11, 1999. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2