Court Opinion

ID: 1000007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:33:47.903602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:14.218297
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 99-6582

MARVEL T. JOHNSON,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-952-AM)

Submitted:   October 7, 1999                 Decided:   October 14, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvel T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Marvel T. Johnson 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 Johnson v. Angelone, No. CA-98-952-AM

(E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 1999).*   We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
April 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 7, 1999.      Pursuant to 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