Filed: May 19, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6009
(CR-94-206-S, CA-97-61-S)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Anthony D. Hawks,
Defendant - Apellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed April 20, 2000, as follows:
On page 1, section 3, lines 2-3, and page 2, line 7 of opinion
-- the district court case numbers are corrected to read CR-94-206-
S and CA-97-61-S.
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY D. HAWKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
94-206-S, CA-97-61-S)
Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony D. Hawks appeals the district court’s orders denying
his motion for new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and his motion
for reconsideration of the same. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Ac-
cordingly, although we grant Hawks’ motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
See United States v. Hawks, Nos. CR-94-206-S; CA-97-61-S (D. Md.
Nov. 10; Nov. 16, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the orders from which Hawks appeals were filed on
October 25, 1999, and November 15, 1999, they were entered on the
district court’s docket sheet on November 10, 1999, and November
16, 1999. November 10, 1999, and November 16, 1999 are therefore
the effective dates of the district court’s decisions. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,
1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
3