Hartman v. Smith, (4th Cir. 1999)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7260 WILLIAM HARTMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-

-740-PJM)

Submitted: December 7, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hartman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attor-

ney 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

* Although the district court’s memorandum and order are marked as “filed” July 9, 1999, the district court’s records show

that they were entered on the docket sheet on July 12, 1999.

Pursuant to rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, it is the date that the memorandum and order were

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 PER CURIAM:

William Hartman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

4 & 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

Hartman v. Smith

, No. CA-99-740- PJM (D. Md. July 12, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. DISMISSED

---