CA-99-55 Sherrod Robinson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 3 PER CURIAM: Sherrod Robinson seeks…

Filed: July 26, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6051
(CA-99-55)
Sherrod Robinson,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
H. J. Ponton, Sr., etc.,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed July 21, 2000, as follows:
On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is
corrected to read: “Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6051
SHERROD ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
H. J. PONTON, SR., Superintendent, Baskerville
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-99-55)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherrod Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 7, 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).
3
PER CURIAM:
Sherrod Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West
1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-
soning of the district court. See Robinson v. Ponton, No. CA-99-55
(E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 1999). * 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

-- 3 of 3 --