Court Opinion

ID: 1000107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:20.611073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:54.099932
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7196

JAMES FEATHERSTONE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden of the Maryland
House of Correction; 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-99-175-WMN)

Submitted:   October 21, 1999             Decided:   October 27, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Featherstone, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     James Featherstone appeals 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 cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See Featherstone v. Hutchinson, No. CA-99-

175-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 13, 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.

                                                          DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
August 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 13, 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