Filed: May 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6398 DAVID A. SUMRALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 378-MJG) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6398 DAVID A. SUMRALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00- 378-MJG) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6398
DAVID A. SUMRALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-
378-MJG)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David A. Sumrall appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition filed pursuant to 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 on the reasoning of the
district court. See Sumrall v. Maryland, No. CA-00-378-MJG (D. Md.
Feb. 16, 2000).* 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
February 15, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000. 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