                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-7506



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MELVIN AVON THOMAS,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
95-175-S, CA-98-3136-S)


Submitted:   December 17, 1998            Decided:   January 12, 1999


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Melvin Avon Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Melvin Avon Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998).   We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court.   See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-95-

175-S; CA-98-3136-S (D. Md. Sept. 22, 1998).*     We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly 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
September 17, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 22, 1998. 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
