Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7073 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES E. HURT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95- 316-MJG, CA-99-474-MJG) Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Hurt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7073 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES E. HURT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95- 316-MJG, CA-99-474-MJG) Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Hurt,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7073
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES E. HURT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95-
316-MJG, CA-99-474-MJG)
Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles E. Hurt, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Hurt 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court. See United States v. Hurt, Nos. CR-95-316-MJG;
CA-99-474-MJG (D. Md. May 18, 1999).* We dispense with oral argu-
ment 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 order from which Hurt appeals was filed on May
17, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet on
May 18, 1999. May 18, 1999, is therefore the effective date of the
district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see
also Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2