Court Opinion

ID: 1002744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:15:35.393585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.522513
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6191

ALONZO KEY,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-1834-3-18-BC)

Submitted:    October 12, 2000             Decided:   October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonzo Key, Appellant Pro Se. George Robert DeLoach, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Caro-
lina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Alonzo Key seeks to appeal 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

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-

trict court. See Key v. Catoe, No. CA-99-1834-3-18-BC (D.S.C. Jan.

18, 2000).*    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.

                                                          DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
January 14, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 18, 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