Court Opinion

ID: 998183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:07:19.954714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:08.017430
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 98-7272

CARLTON LEWIS JOHNSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

D. A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greensville
Correctional Center,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-97-662-AM)

Submitted:   March 11, 1999                 Decided:   March 17, 1999

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Carlton Lewis Johnson seeks to appeal 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.   According-

ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court.   See Johnson v. Garraghty,

No. CA-97-662-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1998).*   Johnson’s motions for

a certificate of probable cause, appointment of counsel, and to

compel are denied.   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
July 31, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on Aug. 5, 1998. 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