Filed: December 8, 2003

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 02-7740(L) (CR-94-126-FO)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

James A. Braswell,

Defendant - Appellant.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed March 14, 2003, as follows:

On page 3, line 10 of text: “Oct. 24, 2002” is corrected to

read “filed Aug. 27, 2002 & entered Aug. 28, 2002.”

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7740

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES A. BRASWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 02-7885

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES A. BRASWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-126-FO)

Submitted: February 25, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

No. 02-7740 affirmed and No. 02-7885 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Braswell, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

3 PER CURIAM:

James A. Braswell appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for an evidentiary hearing to reconstruct transcripts of

his sentencing hearing, and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal of his motion filed under

(2000) as untimely. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court in appeal No. 02-

7740. See United States v. Braswell, No. CR-94-126-FO (E.D.N.C.

filed May 15, 2002 & entered May 17, 2002), and deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss appeal No. 02-7885. See United States

v. Braswell, No. CR-94-126-FO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 27, 2002 &

entered Aug. 28, 2002). 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.

No. 02-7740 - AFFIRMED

No. 02-7885 - DISMISSED

4