Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gaston v. Angelone, 00-6505 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6505 Visitors: 43
Filed: Sep. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6505 JOHN F. GASTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia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. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-845-2) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 00-6505



JOHN F. GASTON,

                                              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. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-99-845-2)


Submitted:   August 30, 2000              Decided:   September 7, 2000


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John F. Gaston, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant At-
torney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     John F. Gaston seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.    See Gaston v. Angelone, No. CA-99-845-2

(E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 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
March 15, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 16, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer