Court Opinion

ID: 999201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:22:12.244867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:51.393977
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6300

ADRIAN RAYMOND WHITE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the Unitdd States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
97-1237-S)

Submitted:   July 8, 1999                  Decided:    July 14, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Raymond White, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Adrian Raymond White seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court.    See White v. Corcoran, No.

CA-97-1237-S (D. Md. Jan. 27, 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

    *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
January 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 27, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was physically 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