United States of America v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 3 PER CURIAM: Robert Morris Cochran…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6098
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 00-6165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT MORRIS COCHRAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-813-BO)
Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 31, 2000

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Morris Cochran, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
January 18, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 19, 2000. 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).
3
PER CURIAM:
Robert Morris Cochran appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to continue Coch-
ran’s commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a) (1994) and the district
court’s order denying Cochran’s motion for preparation of a
transcript at government expense. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United
States v. Cochran, No. CA-96-813-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1999 &
Jan. 19, 2000 *). We deny Cochran’s motion for preparation of a
transcript at government expense. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --