Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Strong v. Robinson, 99-7618 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7618 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7618 WILLIAM R. STRONG, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-1394-AM) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dis
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7618



WILLIAM R. STRONG, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional
Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-99-1394-AM)


Submitted:   February 10, 2000         Decided:     February 17, 2000


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William R. Strong, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William R. Strong, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing 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 Strong v. Robinson, No. CA-99-

1394-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 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
October 29, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 2, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer