Court Opinion

ID: 1001627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:58:20.6457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:19.954396
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6398

DAVID A. SUMRALL,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-
378-MJG)

Submitted:   May 11, 2000                    Decided:   May 17, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     David A. Sumrall appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed pursuant to 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. See Sumrall v. Maryland, No. CA-00-378-MJG (D. Md.

Feb. 16, 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
February 15, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000.      Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2