Court Opinion

ID: 1000548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:42:08.578101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:28.197281
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6859

MICHAEL EDWARDS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-98-1277-AM)

Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 27, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Michael Edwards 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 Edwards v. Director, Virginia

Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-98-1277-AM (E.D. Va. June 8, 1999).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions 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
June 7, 1999, the district court’s records show that the order was
entered on the docket sheet on June 8, 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