                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 99-7078



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILLIE LEE BURKE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-
91-119, CA-98-3732-WMN)


Submitted:   September 20, 1999            Decided:   October 5, 1999


Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willie Lee Burke, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Willie Lee Burke seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we deny a certifi-

cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See United States v. Burke, Nos. CR-91-119;

CA-98-3732-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 1, 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 March 31, 1999, the district court’s records show that
it was entered on the docket sheet on April 1, 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
