United States v. Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2000
• Docket: 99-7247
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BILLY HICKS WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-99-78)

Submitted: February 8, 2000 Decided: February 24, 2000

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Hicks Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Billy Hicks Williams 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. Williams, Nos. CR-94-37;

CA-99-78 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 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.

DISMISSED

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on August 16, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 19, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the (order, judgment, etc.) was physically 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).