                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 98-7414



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WALTER LOUIS INGRAM,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-92-116, CA-97-3512-JFM)


Submitted:   December 17, 1998            Decided:   January 7, 1999


Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cheryl Johns Sturm, Westtown, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Andrea
L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Mary-
land, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Walter Louis Ingram 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. Ingram, Nos. CR-92-

116; CA-97-3512-JFM (D. Md. May 27, 1998).*   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 22, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 27, 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
