                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 99-7348



NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1822-3-20BC)


Submitted:   March 23, 2000                 Decided:   March 29, 2000


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Nathaniel C. Riley, II, appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Riley’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court.   See Riley v. South

Carolina, No. CA-99-1822-3-20BC (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 1999).*    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.




                                                           DISMISSED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
September 3, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 7, 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
