                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 00-6212



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


PAUL EUGENE MASON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-159-P, CA-98-366-3-P)


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


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


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Paul Eugene Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Paul Eugene Mason 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 affirm on the

reasoning of the district court.       See United States v. Mason, Nos.

CR-92-159-P; CA-98-366-3-P (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 1999).*      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.




                                                              AFFIRMED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 20, 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
