Court Opinion

ID: 1002958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:18:51.692836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:36.954588
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-7326

CHRISTINE ANN CARRIGAN,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00-
2009)

Submitted:   November 9, 2000          Decided:     November 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Ann Carrigan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Christine Ann Carrigan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 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 Carrigan v. Attorney

General of Maryland, No. CA-00-2009 (D. Md. Sept. 5, 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
September 1, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 5, 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