Court Opinion

ID: 1001348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:54:28.17842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:45.972889
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-7717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EDWARD JAMES WATSON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Rockingham. William L. Osteen, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-95-307, CA-98-973-1)

Submitted:   April 13, 2000                 Decided:   April 20, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward James Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Edward James Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court.   See United States v. Watson, Nos. CR-95-307; CA-

98-973-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 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
November 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 12, 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