                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 00-6431



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


KENNETH LEON MYERS,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.
(CR-93-345, CA-97-1950-4-12)


Submitted:   August 30, 2000              Decided:   September 7, 2000


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Leon Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Kenneth Leon Myers 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. Myers, Nos. CR-93-345;

CA-97-1950-4-12 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 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
January 20, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on January 27, 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
