Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6504 JACKIE MCKUBBIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-564-3-MU) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie McK
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6504 JACKIE MCKUBBIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-564-3-MU) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie McKu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6504
JACKIE MCKUBBIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-564-3-MU)
Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jackie McKubbin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jackie McKubbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appeal-
ability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See McKubbin v. North Carolina, No. CA-97-564-3-MU (W.D.N.C.
Mar. 29, 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 district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
March 25, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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