Court Opinion

ID: 1000898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:47:46.628825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:49.664096
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BILLY HICKS WILLIAMS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-99-78)

Submitted:   February 8, 2000          Decided:     February 24, 2000

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Hicks Williams, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Billy Hicks Williams 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. Williams, Nos. CR-94-37;

CA-99-78 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 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
August 16, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 19, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the (order, judgment, etc.) was physically 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