United States v. Ingram ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7414
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-92-116, CA-97-3512-JFM)
Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Andrea
L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Walter Louis Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. See United States v. Ingram, Nos. CR-92-
116; CA-97-3512-JFM (D. Md. May 27, 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
May 22, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 27, 1998. 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