Court Opinion

ID: 999315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:23:55.412969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:10.563019
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-6357

ROY JOHNSON, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RALPH LOGAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98-
3628-AMD)

Submitted:   July 22, 1999                  Decided:   July 28, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Roy Johnson, Jr., 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 Johnson v. Logan, No. CA-98-

3628-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 25, 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 marked as “filed” on
February 23, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
dated on the docket sheet on February 25, 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