                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 98-7769



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TIAWAN R. BAILEY,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-97-39, CA-98-670-2)


Submitted:   March 25, 1999                 Decided:   March 31, 1999


Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tiawan R. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Tiawan Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court.   See United States v. Bailey, Nos. CR-97-39; CA-98-670-2

(S.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 1998).*      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
November 24, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 25, 1998.      Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court’s
decision.   Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).


                                 2
