                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7509



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


STEVEN HOLMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
98-97, CA-99-3100-S)


Submitted:   February 10, 2000         Decided:     February 14, 2000


Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven Holman, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Steven Holman 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 a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Holman, Nos. CR-98-97; CA-99-

3100-S (D. Md. Oct. 19, 1999).*       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 October 18, 1999, the district court’s records show that
it was entered on the docket sheet on October 19, 1999. 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).


                                  2
