Filed: Feb. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7457 GARY DARWIN BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 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-99-1095-AM) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7457 GARY DARWIN BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 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-99-1095-AM) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7457
GARY DARWIN BLACK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
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-99-1095-AM)
Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Darwin Black, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary Darwin Black 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 Black v. Warden, James River Correc-
tional Ctr., No. CA-99-1095-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1999).* We dis-
pense 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
October 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 6, 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