Filed: Jul. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6215 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-57-S) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6215 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-57-S) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6215
KELVIN J. MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
00-57-S)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his motion construed as a petition
filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). In the
motion, Miles challenged the validity of his state convictions but
named the United States as Respondent. We have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis, deny a cer-
tificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. See Miles v. United States, No. CA-00-57-S
(D. Md. Jan. 14, 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
January 13, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 14, 2000. 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