                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7043



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


PATRICK WILSON SMITH,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-96-158, CA-99-520-3-2)


Submitted:   September 21, 2000       Decided:   September 29, 2000


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Aaron Edmund Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Patrick Wilson Smith 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 certifi-

cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-96-158;

CA-99-520-3-2 (W.D.N.C. May 30, 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
May 24, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 30, 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
