United States v. Hanberry

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BASHAWN LEE HANBERRY, a/k/a BO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-94-185, CA-99-13) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bashawn Lee Hanberry, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bashawn Lee Hanberry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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. Hanberry, Nos. CR-94-185; CA-99-13 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2000).* 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. DISMISSED * Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on March 6, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 7, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the 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