Court Opinion

ID: 1002592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:13:14.483217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:47.845285
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOE LEWIS BLACKWELL, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-96-109, CA-99-370-1)

Submitted:   September 21, 2000       Decided:   September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Joe Lewis Blackwell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Blackwell, Nos. CR-96-109; CA-99-370-1

(M.D.N.C. May 17, 2000).*   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
May 16, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 17, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and
79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that
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