Court Opinion

ID: 1002742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:15:34.302558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:40.562905
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6379

SAMUEL LEE MOYLER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-99-1237-2)

Submitted:   October 12, 2000             Decided:   October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Lee Moyler, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Samuel Lee Moyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

1994 & Supp. 2000).    We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

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

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Moyler v. Angelone, No. CA-99-1237-2 (E.D.

Va. Feb. 24, 2000).*    We deny Moyler’s motion for appointment of

counsel.   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
February 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 24, 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