Court Opinion

ID: 1002520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:11:58.361874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:22.895095
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 00-7006

ALEC RODNEY BROOKS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JON P. GALLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-
1470-MJG)

Submitted:   August 30, 2000             Decided:   September 11, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alec Rodney Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Alec Rodney Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s memorandum and find no reversible error.       Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court.       See Brooks v. Galley, No. CA-00-

1470-MJG (D. Md. July 13, 2000).*       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
July 12, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 13, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that 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