Court Opinion

ID: 1001636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:58:26.068889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:34.422562
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6319

RAYMOND J. BLY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
00-273)

Submitted:   May 11, 2000                     Decided:   May 17, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond J. Bly, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Raymond J. Bly appeals the district court’s order denying re-

lief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (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.    See Bly v. Attorney General of Maryland,

No. CA-00-274 (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2000).*   We dispense with oral argu-

ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented 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
February 14, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 15, 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).

                                 2