Court Opinion

ID: 1000763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:45:38.554911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:16.289069
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-7524

VINCENT BRADY ALLEN,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

L. L. SHOE,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-456-3-MU)

Submitted:    January 20, 2000             Decided:   February 2, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Brady Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Vincent Brady Allen 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 Allen v. Shoe, No. CA-98-456-3-

MU (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 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.   We deny Allen’s motion to appoint counsel.

                                                          DISMISSED

    *
      Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 14, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 19, 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