                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7508



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BOBBY JARRELL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-95-
139, CA-99-1095-MJG)


Submitted:   February 24, 2000             Decided:   March 3, 2000


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bobby Jarrell, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Bobby Jarrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny the motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reason-

ing of the district court.   See United States v. Jarrell, Nos. CR-

95-139; CA-99-1095-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 13, 1999).*   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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
September 10, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 13, 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
