UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7481
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LINWOOD GRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 99-7482
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRELL BRACEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 99-7483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD M. HUMPHRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
94-241-DKC, CA-97-4287-DKC, CA-97-4288-DKC)
Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Daniel Zimmerman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants.
Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-
belt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order denying
their motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Gray; United States v. Bracey; United
States v. Humphries, Nos. CR-94-241-DKC; CA-97-4287-DKC; CA-97-
4288-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 9, 1999).* 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 judgment or order is marked as
“filed” on September 8, 1999, the district court’s records show
that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 9, 1999.
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).
3