Court Opinion

ID: 1000649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:43:58.730616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:11.206016
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7543

RUDOLPH MCNEIL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

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

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99-
84-AMD)

Submitted:   January 13, 2000             Decided:   January 20, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor-
ney 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Rudolph N. McNeil appeals 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 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 McNeil v. Corcoran, No. CA-99-84-AMD

(D. Md. Oct. 6, 1999).*   We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                          DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 6, 1999. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                  2