Court Opinion

ID: 997526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:57:49.89296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:19.070780
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 98-6701

STEVEN CLINTON CHERRY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-97-1104-AM)

Submitted:   December 17, 1998            Decided:   January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Clinton Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find no reversible error.     Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.    Cherry v. Angelone, No. CA-97-1104-AM (E.D.

Va. Apr. 30, 1998).*   Additionally, we deny Appellant’s motions for

appointment of counsel and preparation of a transcript at gov-

ernment expense.   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
April 29, 1998, the district court’s records show that the order
was entered on the docket sheet on April 30, 1998. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was physically 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