                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 98-7224



DAVID A. SUMRALL,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION; MARYLAND
PAROLE COMMISSION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98-
222-MJG)


Submitted:   January 29, 1999           Decided:     February 17, 1999


Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David A. Sumrall, Appellant Pro Se.     John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     David A. Sumrall appeals the district court’s order 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

opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Sumrall v. Maryland Div. of Correction,

No. CA-98-222-MJG (D. Md. July 24, 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 order is dated July 22, 1998,
the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket
sheet on July 24, 1998. 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).


                                 2
