U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

United States v. Williams

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 21, 1999

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

THOMAS LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-1, CA-98-2091-4-22)

Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Scarlett Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.1 See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-95- 1; CA-98-2091-4-22 (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 1999).2 Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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

1 We note that there is no recognized authority in this Circuit allowing the district court to grant Williams an extension of time in which to file his § 2255 motion. We decline to address this issue, however, because Williams’ claims were properly denied on the merits. 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 14, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 19, 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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.