Court Opinion

ID: 1001250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:52:36.122611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:39:43.691220
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-7350

RONALD SMITH, JR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

MARK HENRY, Warden; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Director,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-99-2269-JFM)

Submitted:   March 23, 2000                 Decided:   March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ronald Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition.    We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error.    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court.    See Smith v. Henry, No. CA-99-2269-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 10,

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.

                                                           AFFIRMED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 9, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 10, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date the order is 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