United States v. Widener ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDDIE DOUGLAS WIDENER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-90-251, CA-98-2012-AW)
Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Freddie Douglas Widener, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Lee Evans,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Douglas Widener seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss, dismissing his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and
denying his motion to amend the § 2255 motion. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
United States v. Widener, Nos. CR-90-251, CA-98-2012-AW (D. Md.
Aug. 18, 1998).* 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 17, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 18, 1998. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order is 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, 1234-45 (4th Cir. 1986).
2