Court Opinion

ID: 1000892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:47:26.414393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:57.371120
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6965

JOHN DAVID DENNIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-3631-DKC)

Submitted:   February 10, 2000         Decided:     February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John David Dennis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At-
torney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John David Dennis 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 Dennis v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-

3631-DKC (D. Md. June 30, 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
June 29, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on June 30, 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