Court Opinion

ID: 1003355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:25:19.393008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:15.218370
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

NORMAN CRAIG,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-105-3-V, CA-0-403-3-V)

Submitted:   January 11, 2001             Decided:   January 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Craig, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Norman Craig seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying 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 reasoning of the dis-

trict court. United States v. Craig, Nos. CR-96-105-3-V; CA-0-403-

3-V (W.D.N.C. Oct. 11, 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
October 5, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 11, 2000. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that
we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision.
Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2