Court Opinion

ID: 1000295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:38:16.165534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:15.084486
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joe Johnson,
a/k/a Joseph Johnson,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CR-96-180-A, CA-98-1066-A)

Submitted:   November 18, 1999         Decided:     November 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Gerard Connolly,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., 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. Johnson, Nos. CR-96-180-

A; CA-98-1066-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 1999).*    We deny Johnson’s mo-

tion for appointment of counsel.     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 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 10, 1999. 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 order.

                                 2