Court Opinion

ID: 999043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:19:50.228316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:36.530408
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-6167

JOHN MARK BERRILL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PATRICK KEOHANE; ATTORNEY     GENERAL   OF   THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-1192-AM)

Submitted:   June 17, 1999                   Decided:   June 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Mark Berrill, Appellant Pro Se.     Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John Mark Berrill appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 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 cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See Berrill v. Keohane, No. CA-98-1192-AM

(E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 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
December 11, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 15, 1998.     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