United States v. Abston

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES ALLAN ABSTON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-6420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES ALLAN ABSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-339-A) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. No. 99-6095 dismissed and No. 99-6420 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Allan Abston, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 PER CURIAM: James Allan Abston seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to file an untimely 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion challenging his 1997 convictions on drug and firearms charges. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, in No. 99-6095, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Abston, No. CR-97-339-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 1998 & Jan. 27, 1999).* In No. 99-6420, Abston appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider an order denying his motion for preparation of transcripts. As Abston did not make a satisfactory showing of particularized need for the transcripts, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994), we affirm the district court’s ruling. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 99-6095 - DISMISSED No. 99-6420 - AFFIRMED * Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on December 10, 1998, and December 29, 1998, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on January 27, 1999, and December 31, 1998, respectively. 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