                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 00-6272



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RONALD LEE JONES,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-191, CA-00-138)


Submitted:   April 13, 2000                 Decided:   April 21, 2000


Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronald Lee Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ronald Lee Jones 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 certif-

icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court.   See United States v. Jones, Nos. CR-96-191;

CA-00-138 (E.D. Va. Feb. 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
February 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 3, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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
