UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6054

ISAAC GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 98-4104-CCB)

Submitted: April 6, 1999 Decided: July 8, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Isaac Gray appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gray v. Gee, No. CA-98-4104-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 30, 1998*). We dis- pense 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 judgment or order is marked as “filed” on Dec. 28, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on Dec. 30, 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).