UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-7679

CURT N. PRICE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-1-K, CA-96-645-K)

Submitted: January 9, 1997

Decided: January 29, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Curt N. Price, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterror-
ism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132,
110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
opinion and find no reversible error.

Specifically, we find that Appellant's conviction, on a guilty plea,
under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), is proper under the "carry" prong of
that statute. See Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W.
4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (94-7448, 94-7492). In addition, the record
does not support Appellant's claim that he was promised a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 35 motion by the Government. We also find that because
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b)
(Nov. 1992), did not become effective until after the date of Appel-
lant's sentencing, and because the amendment is not retroactive under
USSG § 1B1.10, Appellant's claim that he is entitled to a third level
of reduction for acceptance of responsibility is without merit. Finally,
because none of the issues Appellant raised have merit, we find that
Appellant has not demonstrated any attorney error required by
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984), and
therefore cannot meet his burden under Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52,
58-59 (1985), necessary to obtain relief from his guilty plea based on
ineffective assistance.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
appeal. 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

                    2
