Court Opinion

ID: 1002157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:06:43.520129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:10.856802
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6507

ROBERT HANEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOEL H. KNOWLES, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
NORTH CAROLINA,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-32-1-MU)

Submitted:   July 27, 2000                 Decided:   August 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Haney, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Robert Haney seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court.       See Haney v. Knowles, No. CA-97-

32-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 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
March 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 29, 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