United States v. Hinebaugh ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6788
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FULTON LEE HINEBAUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District
Judge. (CR-94-65, CA-99-69-T)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fulton Lee Hinebaugh, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fulton Lee Hinebaugh 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. Hinebaugh, Nos. CR-94-65;
CA-99-69-T (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 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
April 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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