United States v. Cevallos ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROGELIO CEVALLOS, a/k/a Roger Cevallos, a/k/a
Richard Ruiz, a/k/a Ronnie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-94-275, CA-98-811-A)
Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rogelio Cevallos, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rogelio Cevallos appeals the district court’s orders denying
as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
1999) and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. See United States v. Cevallos, Nos. CR-94-275; CA-98-
811-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 9* and May 6, 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 order is marked as “filed” on
March 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 9, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the order was physically 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