Court Opinion

ID: 1002047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:03.277133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:34.618037
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6320

SEAN AARON HOLMES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
99-914-DKC)

Submitted:   July 10, 2000                 Decided:    July 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Aaron Holmes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Sean Holmes appeals 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 memo-

randum 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 Holmes v. Conroy, No. CA-99-914-DKC (D.

Md. Feb. 17, 2000).*   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
February 16, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 17, 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