Court Opinion

ID: 1000575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:42:41.132812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:16.076820
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

CHUNGA HAKI MATATA,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-94-44, CA-98-68-4)

Submitted:   December 16, 1999            Decided:   January 5, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chunga Haki Matata, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Chunga Haki Matata 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. Matata, Nos. CR-94-44;

CA-98-68-4 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 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
June 16, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on June 17, 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 opinion.     See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2