                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 99-6810



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DONALD WILLIAM FRASER,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
91-181-ALL, CA-99-1036-S)


Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 26, 1999


Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Helen Wang, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Lynne Ann
Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Donald William Fraser seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999).   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. Fraser, Nos. CR-91-181-

ALL; CA-99-1036-S (D. Md. May 10, 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 dated May 7, 1999,
the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket
sheet on May 10, 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
