United States v. North ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-7144
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT APONTE NORTH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 00-7273
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT APONTE NORTH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-98-00327-A, CA-99-01749-A)
    Submitted:   December 12, 2000         Decided:     December 27, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Aponte North, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated cases, Robert Aponte North seeks to ap-
    peal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000), and the court’s order denying
    his post-trial motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.59(e). We have reviewed
    the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
    error.   Accordingly, in No. 00-7144, we grant North’s motion to
    submit declaration, deny North’s motions for production of docu-
    ments and for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
    appeal on the reasoning of the district court.    United States v.
    North, Nos. CR-98-00327-A; CA-99-01749-A (E.D. Va. July 25, 2000).*
    In No. 00-7273, we have reviewed the district court’s order denying
    the Rule 59(e) motion, and find no abuse of discretion.   See Brown
    v. French, 
    147 F.3d 307
    , 310 (4th Cir. 1998).    Therefore, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 judgment or order is marked as
    “filed” on July 24, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it
    was entered on the docket sheet on July 25, 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).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7144

Filed Date: 12/27/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014