                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-6273



ANDREW V. KIRKMAN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JACK TURLINGTON,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-947-1)


Submitted:   September 9, 1999        Decided:   September 14, 1999


Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew V. Kirkman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Andrew V. Kirkman seeks to appeal 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge 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 Kirkman v. North Carolina Att’y Gen.,

No. CA-97-947-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 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 order is marked as “filed” on
February 9, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 10, 1999.     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
