United States v. Patterson ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-6391
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDDIE PATTERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-93-113)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2000         Decided:     December 20, 2000
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eddie Patterson, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Eddie Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying his
    motion to compel the Government to file a motion under Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 35(b).   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.     United States v.
    Patterson, No. CR-93-113 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 29, 2000).*   With regard to
    the claims Patterson raises for the first time on appeal, we de-
    cline to address them.   See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration
    & Oil Inc., 
    206 F.3d 404
    , 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to
    consider issues raised for first time on appeal); Muth v. United
    States, 
    1 F.3d 246
    , 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised
    for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent
    exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage
    of justice).   Should Patterson wish to pursue those claims in a
    second motion under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000), he must
    first seek authorization from this court to do so.      We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    *
    Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
    February 28, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on February 29, 2000.       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).
    2
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6391

Filed Date: 12/20/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014