Court Opinion

ID: 998636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:13:49.333621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:30.033263
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 98-7698

IRVING TILGHMAN, JR.,

                                            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 Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-98-3014-WMN)

Submitted:   April 29, 1999                    Decided:   May 4, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irving Tilghman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Irving Tilghman, 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. 1998).     We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.   According-

ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court.   See Tilghman v. Corcoran,

No. CA-98-3014-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 6, 1998).*   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 signed and date
stamped on November 3, 1998, the district court’s records show that
it was entered on the docket sheet on November 6, 1998. 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