Court Opinion

ID: 1002947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:18:45.554753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:45.569421
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7323

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM HORACE JOHNSON, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-178-BO, CA-00-110-5-BO)

Submitted:   November 9, 2000          Decided:     November 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Horace Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Horace Johnson, 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the district court.   See United States v. Johnson, Nos.

CR-96-178-BO; CA-00-110-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2000).*    We dis-

pense 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
August 18, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 21, 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