Court Opinion

ID: 1002605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:13:21.973106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:26.625373
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-7032

STANLEY G. BRIMM,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1028)

Submitted:   September 21, 2000        Decided:   September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley G. Brimm, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Stanley G. Brimm seeks to appeal the district court’s order

declining to reconsider the order refusing to alter or amend judg-

ment denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict 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 Brimm v. Angelone, No.

CA-99-1028 (E.D. Va. July 20, 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
July 19, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 20, 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