Court Opinion

ID: 1001518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:56:42.082651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:43.310674
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-7671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LARRY EUGENE REED,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-96-22)

Submitted:   April 27, 2000                   Decided:   May 2, 2000

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Eugene Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Larry Eugene Reed appeals the district court’s order denying

his motions for preparation of transcript at government expense and

for enlargement of time.   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Reed, No. CR-96-22 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 1999).*   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                          AFFIRMED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
November 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 18, 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