United States v. Boyd

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRY RENEE BOYD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-387-B, CA-97-1180-HNM)

Submitted: August 24, 1999 Decided: September 8, 1999

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Renee Boyd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Terry Renee Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999)

and the district court’s order denying his combined motions to

alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and for leave to

amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-

ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Boyd, Nos. CR-93-387-B; CA-97-1180-HNM (D. Md. Feb. 1 &

Mar. 2, 1999).* 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.

AFFIRMED

* Although the district court’s judgment or order denying Boyd’s § 2255 motion is marked as “filed” on January 29, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 1, 1999. Similarly, although the district court’s judgment or order denying Boyd’s combined Rule 59 and Rule 15 motions is marked as “filed” on March 1, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or 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).