Court Opinion

ID: 1002589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:13:12.85988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.059557
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
94-454-PJM)

Submitted:   September 21, 2000       Decided:   September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial.   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. Gibson, No. CR-94-454-PJM (D.

Md. July 24, 2000).*   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
July 21, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 24, 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