                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-6418



TYJUANE JERRELL PRIDGEN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WARDEN, BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-1094-AM)


Submitted:   September 9, 1999        Decided:   September 14, 1999


Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyjuane Jerrell Pridgen, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Tyjuane Jerrell Pridgen seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error.    Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court.   See Pridgen v. Warden, Buck-

ingham Correctional Ctr., No. CA-98-1094-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 24,

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
February 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 24, 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
