                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 99-6803



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ABU ASHONTE ALI, a/k/a Marty Boldin, a/k/a
Marty Boldwin,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CR-95-31-2, CA-98-982-2)


Submitted:   October 8, 1999                 Decided:   October 22, 1999


Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Abu Ashonte Ali, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Abu Ashonte Ali 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 order

and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court.   See United States v. Ali, Nos. CR-95-31-2; CA-98-

982-2 (E.D. Va. May 5, 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.




                                                          DISMISSED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
May 4, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 5, 1999. 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
