Court Opinion

ID: 1000472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:41:24.155331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:40.430483
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DAVID M. ROBINSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CR-95-479-WMN, CA-99-374-WMN)

Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 30, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     David M. Robinson 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. Robinson, Nos. CR-95-479-

WMN; CA-99-374-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 22, 1999).*    We deny Robinson’s

motions to expedite the appeal, for bail pending appeal, and for

judgment on the pleadings.   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                          DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 22, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date 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