Court Opinion

ID: 1000471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:41:23.626607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:15.674234
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7259

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

IRVIN TERRELL SCOTT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-97-249)

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

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irvin Terrell Scott, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Irvin Terrell Scott appeals the district court’s order denying

his “motion for reconsideration and post rehabilitation.” We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court.     See United States v. Scott, No. CR-97-249 (E.D.

Va. Sept. 14, 1999).*    We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                           AFFIRMED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 14, 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 decision. See
Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                  2