Filed: Jul. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6142 BENJAMIN O. STOKES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-2644-DKC) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Leslie
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6142 BENJAMIN O. STOKES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-2644-DKC) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Leslie W..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6142
BENJAMIN O. STOKES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EARL BESHEARS, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-2644-DKC)
Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: July 22, 1999
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Byron Leslie Warnken, James Anthony Lanier, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin O. Stokes appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &
Supp. 1998), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Stokes v. Beshears, No. CA-98-2644-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 13, 1998; Jan.
13, 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 orders from which Stokes appeals were signed on
August 11, 1998, and January 7, 1999, respectively, they were
entered on the district court’s docket sheet on August 13, 1998,
and January 13, 1999. These latter dates are therefore the
effective dates of the district court’s decisions. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232,
1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2