Court Opinion

ID: 1002375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:10:15.639924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:32.055007
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 00-6307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ANTHONY L. OLVIS, a/k/a Tony,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-95-38, CA-99-48-4)

Submitted:   August 30, 2000              Decided:   September 7, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony L. Olvis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Anthony L. Olvis 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 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. Olvis, Nos. CR-95-38; CA-

99-48-4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2000).*    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
February 7, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 8, 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