Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7272 JOHN L. WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK A. HENRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 99-1752-CCB) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John L. White, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7272 JOHN L. WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK A. HENRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 99-1752-CCB) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John L. White, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7272
JOHN L. WHITE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
MARK A. HENRY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
99-1752-CCB)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John L. White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John L. White appeals the district court’s order denying re-
lief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See White v. Henry, No. CA-99-1752-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 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.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 1, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 2, 1999. 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