                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-6091



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHARLES DEANGELO COMER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-95-119, CA-98-864-1)


Submitted:   May 25, 2000                   Decided:   June 5, 2000


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Deangelo Comer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Charles Deangelo Comer 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

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis-

trict court.   See United States v. Comer, Nos. CR-95-119; CA-98-

864-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 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
November 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 15, 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
