Court Opinion

ID: 1000666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:44:08.285127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:11.339804
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7189

LEVON STOKES,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-3962-DKC)

Submitted:   January 13, 2000             Decided:   January 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levon Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARY-
LAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Levon Stokes seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing 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

Stokes’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court.      See Stokes v.

Corcoran, No. CA-98-3962-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 2, 1999).*   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 “stamped” July 30,
1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the
docket sheet on August 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date 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