Court Opinion

ID: 1001812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:01:02.588272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.441691
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6046

DIEUNIOUS CADEJUSTE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,
Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-2299-H)

Submitted:   May 25, 2000                   Decided:   June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dieunious Cadejuste, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Dieunious Cadejuste 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 Cadejuste v. Kaloroumakis, No.

CA-99-2299-H (D. Md. Nov. 30, 1999).*            We dispense with oral argu-

ment       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
November 29, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 30, 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