Court Opinion

ID: 998151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:07:02.306552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:07.773345
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-6057

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN-COX,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

FRANK C. SIZER, JR.; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 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-98-
2760-MJG)

Submitted:   March 11, 1999                 Decided:   March 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John McLaughlin-Cox, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John McLaughlin-Cox appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998).   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 McLaughlin-Cox v. Sizer, No. CA-98-

2760-MJG (D. Md. Dec. 16, 1998).*    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
December 15, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 16, 1998.      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