United States v. Carroll ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID CARROLL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-519-A, CA-98-1724-AM)
Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Carroll seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See United States v. Carroll, Nos. CR-94-519-A; CA-98-1724-
AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1998; Jan. 12, 1999).* We deny Carroll’s
motion requesting that the Government be ordered to respond; the
appellee is not required to file a responsive brief. 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 orders are marked as “filed”
on December 10, 1998, and January 11, 1999, the district court’s
records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on December
14, 1998, and January 12, 1999, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decisions. See Wilson
v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2