                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-6533



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


SCOTT DAVID NORTMAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-96-
484-L, CA-98-2206-L)


Submitted:   July 13, 2000                 Decided:    July 25, 2000


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Scott David Nortman, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Scott David Nortman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

2000).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

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

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See United States v. Nortman, Nos. CR-96-484-

L; CA-98-2206-L (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2000).*      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
March 31, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 3, 2000. 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
