                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7010



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-93-72-BO, CA-96-14-4-BO)


Submitted:   November 30, 2000         Decided:     February 16, 2001


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Jimmy Lee Williams appeals 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 opinion 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. Williams, Nos. CR-93-72-BO; CA-96-14-

4-BO (E.D.N.C. May 4, 2000).*   We dispense with oral argument be-

cause 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 judgment or order is marked as
“filed” on April 21, 2000, the district court’s record shows that
it was entered on the docket sheet on May 4, 2000. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the judgment or 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
