Owens v. Corcoran

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Owens v. Corcoran

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7712

JAMES LARRY OWENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7791

JAMES LARRY OWENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 2504-L) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 21, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Larry Owens, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., At- torney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

James Larry Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying 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 opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny Owens’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Owens v.

Corcoran, No. CA-98-2504-L (D. Md. Sept. 25 & Nov. 19, 1998).* 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 or order is marked as “filed” on November 18, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 19, 1998. 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).

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished