Court Opinion

ID: 999938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:32:53.02202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:22.623513
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6580

CALVIN ROBINSON-BEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND;
THOMAS CORCORAN,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-
1364-AMD)

Submitted:   September 30, 1999           Decided:   October 6, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Robinson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Calvin Robinson-Bey seeks to appeal 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 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the district court. See Robinson-Bey v. Attorney Gen. of

Md., No. CA-97-1364-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 8, 1999).*   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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 7, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 8, 1999. 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 -