Filed: Jul. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6249 ALBERT WAYNE ADCOCK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1202-2) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6249 ALBERT WAYNE ADCOCK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1202-2) Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6249
ALBERT WAYNE ADCOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-1202-2)
Submitted: June 30, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Wayne Adcock, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Albert Wayne Adcock seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 Adcock v. Angelone, No. CA-98-
1202-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 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 judgment is marked as “filed”
on January 27, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 28, 2000. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the judgment or 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