                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7281



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee,

          versus


MITCHELL LEE GRESHAM, a/k/a Hickey,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97-
162-MJG, CA-99-3591-MJG)


Submitted:   December 14, 2000         Decided:     December 20, 2000


Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mitchell Lee Gresham, Appellant Pro Se.  Martin Joseph Clarke,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Mitchell Lee Gresham 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

opinion 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 Gresham v. United States, Nos. CR-97-

162-MJG; CA-99-3591-MJG (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2000).*   We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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
August 22, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on August 23, 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
