Court Opinion

ID: 999077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:20:09.535342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:54.099200
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-6392

BILLY D. DALTON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

EARL BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98-
3059-L)

Submitted:   June 17, 1999                 Decided:   June 23, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy D. Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Billy D. Dalton 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 Dalton v. Beshears, No. CA-98-3059-L

(D. Md. Mar. 11, 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 order from which Dalton appeals was filed on
March 10, 1999, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet
on March 11, 1999. March 11, 1999, is therefore the effective date
of the district court’s decision.     See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).

                                  2