Shanghai Montral v. Wang ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SHANGHAI MONTRAL FOODSTUFF
COMPANY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
XINHUA WANG, a/k/a William Wang,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 98-1152
and
XIAOYIN FAN, a/k/a Shelly Fan;
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE
CORPORATION, d/b/a ITTC,
Defendants.
SHANGHAI MONTRAL FOODSTUFF
COMPANY, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
XINHUA WANG, a/k/a William Wang,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 98-1198
and
XIAOYIN FAN, a/k/a Shelly Fan;
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE
CORPORATION, d/b/a ITTC,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-96-1794-A)
Submitted: November 9, 1999
Decided: December 20, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Xinhua Wang, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Alexander Lehman, Alex-
andria, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Xinhua "William" Wang appeals the district court's
judgment after a civil jury trial finding against him and other defen-
dants, and the district court's order denying his motion for judgment
as a matter of law after the trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The
record does not contain a transcript of the trial. The burden of includ-
ing in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings
material to the issues raised on appeal is imposed upon Appellant
Wang on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Loc. R. 10(c).
Despite being advised by this court that a transcript of the trial was
necessary for a full consideration of his appeal and being directed to
provide a transcript or apply for in forma pauperis status so that the
court could consider his eligibility for a free transcript under 28
U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994), Wang has failed to do either. By failing to
2
produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at
government expense, Wang has waived review of the issues on appeal
that depend upon the transcript to show error.1 See Powell v. Estelle,
959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Keller v. Prince George's Co., 827
F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record
before us, we affirm the district court's order. See Shanghai Montral
v. Wang, No. CA-96-1794-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 25 & Dec. 30, 1997).2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process. We also deny Wang's
motion to "examine practice of SMF's attorney."
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
1 The limited transcripts provided by Wang provide an insufficient
basis for this court to review the issues he raises on appeal.
2 Although the district court's orders are marked as "filed" on August
21 & December 23, 1997, respectively, the district court's records show
that they were entered on the docket sheet on August 25 & December 30,
1997. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure, it is the date that the order 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).
3