Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-6039•United States of America v. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. CR-99-97-A, CA-99-1410-A
00-6039Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21.04.2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMIR A. KESBEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-97-A, CA-99-1410-A)
Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samir A. Kesbeh, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
November 23, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 24, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date the 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).
2
PER CURIAM:
Samir A. Kesbeh seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-
nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Kesbeh, Nos. CR-99-97-A; CA-99-
1410-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.