Court Opinion

ID: 1002741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:15:33.750839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:12.387430
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-6788

WILSON PALACIO,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional
Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney Gen-
eral of the State of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-1461)

Submitted:   October 12, 2000             Decided:   October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilson Palacio, Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Wilson Palacio appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000), and the district court’s order declining to reconsider

the denial of relief.   We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Palacio v. Johnson, No. CA-99-1461 (D.S.C.

Mar. 30 & May 5, 2000).*    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
March 29, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 30, 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