Court Opinion

ID: 1002181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:06:57.867687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:11.971517
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 00-6030

WILLIAM T. SIMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, Southampton Correctional Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-99-578-AM)

Submitted:   July 27, 2000                 Decided:   August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William T. Sims 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 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 Sims v. Warden, No. CA-99-578-AM

(E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1999).*     We deny Sims’ request to order the

Virginia Department of Corrections to transfer him to another

facility.     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
December 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 14, 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