UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-6966



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DARRYL JAMISON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting
by designation. (CR-95-39-WMN, CA-98-2643-HNM)


Submitted:   November 4, 1999          Decided:     November 10, 1999


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darryl Jamison, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Welsh, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darryl Jamison seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion 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. Jamison, Nos. CR-95-39-WMN; CA-

98-2643-HNM (D. Md. June 25, 1999).*             We dispense with oral argu-

ment       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
June 24, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on June 25, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we
take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See
Wilson v. Murray, 

, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).


                                          2