Court Opinion

ID: 998699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:15:01.993965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:44.435515
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 98-6628

GENE THOMAS MEYER,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM,     SR.,   Commissioner;    J.
JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

                                              Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
98-884-S)

Submitted:   May 13, 1999                      Decided:   May 21, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Warren Bennett, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Annabelle
Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gene Thomas Meyer seeks to appeal 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 opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the district court. See Meyer v. Lanham, No. CA-98-884-S

(D. Md. Mar. 31, 1998).*   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 district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
March 30, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 31, 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.
Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                 2